Building scheduler role

My name is Jed Black and I am a church service missionary. I have been asked to become an expert on calendar and have been doing so for most of 2013 . As part of this assignment I am over a team of church service missionaries asked to update the calendar help and also come with training for members on how to use calendar. One of our major concerns is related to the role of building schedulers. The current help states that building schedulers cannot schedule events. This is totally false. The only reason Building schedulers cannot schedule events is because no one has added them as editors to a calendar. The Building scheduler for a ward should be added, by name, to the ward activities calendar. The stake should create a building calendar for each of the shared buildings in the stake and make the building schedulers editors on these building calendars. Then building schedulers can schedule building events such as weddings, funerals, etc and everyone can see these events. It is important to remember that once building schedulers can schedule events this solves many of the problems where conflicts arise because the schedulers were using restrictions rather than reservations. The new help documents and member training will reflect this.

[Moderator note from aebrown: I split this topic from I can't see my Ward Calendar?, since it deals with a different issue.]

blackjf1 wrote:My name is Jed Black and I am a church service missionary. I have been asked to become an expert on calendar and have been doing so for most of 2013 . As part of this assignment I am over a team of church service missionaries asked to update the calendar help and also come with training for members on how to use calendar. One of our major concerns is related to the role of building schedulers. The current help states that building schedulers cannot schedule events. This is totally false. The only reason Building schedulers cannot schedule events is because no one has added them as editors to a calendar. The Building scheduler for a ward should be added, by name, to the ward activities calendar. The stake should create a building calendar for each of the shared buildings in the stake and make the building schedulers editors on these building calendars. Then building schedulers can schedule building events such as weddings, funerals, etc and everyone can see these events. It is important to remember that once building schedulers can schedule events this solves many of the problems where conflicts arise because the schedulers were using restrictions rather than reservations. The new help documents and member training will reflect this.

It's great to hear that the help will updating! However, before you publish the updated help and training I would suggest you solicit feedback here on the forum. Many of us have had years of now of helping people use the forum and know what works and what causes confusion. Some of your terminology here concerns me. 'Building scheduler for a ward' would make people thing that each ward should have someone with the buildings scheduler role in the calendar. That's a bad idea. I believe that aebrown's stake use the term 'ward calendar coordinator' instead to make sure people don't think they should have the building scheduler role. I like that. The term 'building calendar' can also be a problem because it makes people think they have to use that calendar to schedule the building. A 'Private Events' calendar is a better term that will cause less confusion.

However, this really is a different subject so if you'd like to discuss it further, please start another thread.

I agree that the building scheduler should be an editor on at least one calendar. However, most of the events the building scheduler would create should be private, so they should have a private calendar for such events.

Public ward and stake events should, of course, be created on public calendars for all to see. However, such public events should be created by members of the ward and stake councils, and not the building scheduler.

IMHO

blackjf1 wrote:My name is Jed Black and I am a church service missionary. I have been asked to become an expert on calendar and have been doing so for most of 2013 . As part of this assignment I am over a team of church service missionaries asked to update the calendar help and also come with training for members on how to use calendar.

This is great news. It's been frustrating that the documentation for Calendar (and for the other tools on LDS.org, for that matter) has been neglected for so long. The fact that it is out of date makes it confusing for users, and less useful as a place we on the forum can direct users for information. So I'm very happy to hear that someone has been assigned to update this.

blackjf1 wrote:One of our major concerns is related to the role of building schedulers. The current help states that building schedulers cannot schedule events. This is totally false. The only reason Building schedulers cannot schedule events is because no one has added them as editors to a calendar.

Actually, it's totally true. It's just as true as the statement "the Nursery Leader cannot schedule events". Being given the assignment of building scheduler confers absolutely no permissions to schedule an event, any more than being given the calling of Nursery Leader does.

Now, you do have a point that the building scheduler can be given permissions to edit one or more calendars, and that may make sense in some cases. But it certainly runs the risk of perpetuating the myth that people need to ask the building scheduler to schedule buildings for them. The vast majority of events should be scheduled by someone else, and it's quite reasonable for the building scheduler to never schedule a single event.

If you're going to update the documentation, please make sure that you keep a very clear distinction between what permissions are conferred upon a person when a stake administrator assigns them the role of Building Scheduler in the Calendar, and what other additional permissions might be assigned to such a person, completely independent of that particular assignment of Building Scheduler.

blackjf1 wrote:The Building scheduler for a ward should be added, by name, to the ward activities calendar.

The term "Building scheduler for a ward" is quite confusing. A Building Scheduler is an assigned role in the Calendar that is associated with a Location, not a ward. If someone has been asked to help schedule events for a ward, they should be an editor for the ward activities calendar (and perhaps other calendars as well), but that has nothing to do with the Building Scheduler role.

I suppose that for the case of a building that houses only one ward, it's possible that the bishop may choose to designate someone to be a "building scheduler." But in such a case, there's a strong argument to be made that such a person would not need to have the Building Scheduler role at all -- everything that needs to be done can be done by using events. The only challenge that might arise is if people from other wards try to schedule that building for their ward functions (in which case some Restrictions might be helpful). But if that's not a problem, you really could dispense with having a building scheduler.

blackjf1 wrote:The stake should create a building calendar for each of the shared buildings in the stake and make the building schedulers editors on these building calendars. Then building schedulers can schedule building events such as weddings, funerals, etc and everyone can see these events.

This is one possible approach, but I certainly would never use the word "should" for an optional approach. I can see how it could certainly be an option that could work for some stakes, but by no means is it the only approach. I personally don't think it should even be the recommended approach.

A different model, which we have used very successfully in our stake, is to avoid having the Building Scheduler schedule any events at all. Instead, each ward has a "Calendar Coordinator" who schedules events for situations where it may not be best to have an existing calendar coordinator put the event on a standard calendar, including weddings, funerals for people not connected to the ward, etc. (funerals for ward members should be put on a public ward calendar, of course). There is absolutely no reason why such events would need to be added by a "Building Scheduler."

One major problem I see with having the Building Scheduler schedule events is that he or she does not have access to each ward's calendar. Although some events the scheduler may be asked to add to the calendar do indeed belong on a private calendar, it's almost certain that a building scheduler will be asked to schedule events that really do belong on a public ward calendar. Then the scheduler may be tempted to put such an event on the calendar that he or she does have access to in order to book the building, but this is a poor choice, since it will result in the event being invisible to ward members.

blackjf1 wrote:It is important to remember that once building schedulers can schedule events this solves many of the problems where conflicts arise because the schedulers were using restrictions rather than reservations. The new help documents and member training will reflect this.

I agree that we should do everything we can to discourage anyone from using restrictions in place of events (I think that's what you meant to say when you used the word "reservations," which is the old term for what is now a "restriction"). There are many problems caused by using a restriction in a misguided effort to book the building for an event.

But as I've described above, there are other ways to solve this problem than turning building schedulers into calendar editors. I would hope that the new help documents and training will reflect this.

blackjf1 wrote:The current help states that building schedulers cannot schedule events. This is totally false.

Where are you looking? If it says that granting someone building scheduler rights in the calendar does not automatically grant rights to schedule events, then it's totally true. I don't think the help system addresses the issue of what rights a building scheduler should be given.

blackjf1 wrote:The Building scheduler for a ward should be added, by name, to the ward activities calendar. The stake should create a building calendar for each of the shared buildings in the stake and make the building schedulers editors on these building calendars

Keep in mind that no one can be added to a ward calendar if they do not belong to the ward. So the traditional role of one person scheduling events for multiple units is dead, Dead, DEAD. Our biggest problem with the calendar is trying to get that though some people's heads. But they're stuck in a tradition which has been rendered obsolete by technology.

The fact is, the role of building scheduler is no longer necessary. We have one building with 3 units in it with no building scheduler. It works fine. Each ward schedules their own events and the church servers block conflicts. If there's a problem, then a few phone calls have to be made to resolve it.

At one time, the role of building scheduler was required. From a practical standpoint, there can be only one calendar for a building. Synchronizing paper calendars isn't practical, so multiple copies doesn't work. Units could post that calendar on the wall, but it wouldn't be easily available and would have no security. (Someone could erase someone else's event.) So a person was called to watch over this calendar and be a phone call away from answering questions and adding events. In IT terminology, they were a "calendar server". That role has now been replaced with a computer server. It keeps track of "the" calendar for the building and with LDS Accounts tied to callings, it has security.

In the current system, scheduling an event and selecting the rooms schedules the building automatically. It really isn't necessary for anyone to check in with another layer of administration. Yes, there is still a need for someone to schedule family events such as parties and weddings. In our stake, we have private calendars for that and the Executive secretary handles that. Works well.

Excellent analysis by Alan. Building Schedulers should only create events for people who cannot create the events themselves, meaning people outside the stake. Such events should be on a private calendar so they are not visible to members of the stake. Those events are only needed to prevent any other events competing for the same resources.

I see the building scheduler role to be extremely passive:
- Create recurring restrictions.
- Create events for those outside the stake.
- If necessary, negotiate temporary changes to restrictions to allow wards and stakes to schedule events for times and resources normally reserved for other wards or stakes.

Stake councils and ward councils should be creating the great majority of events, and ward members should be encouraged to consult the calendar, and to ask their ward councils to create needed events. The building scheduler is not normally involved in the creation of ward and stake events.

I just wish I could get my ward to use the calendar, rather than Facebook, Twitter, or e-mail to schedule events and notify the members.

drepouille wrote:Building Schedulers should only create events for people who cannot create the events themselves, meaning people outside the stake.

That would also include the rank-and-file members who are not in any unit leadership. For example, to schedule wedding receptions.

That is a question that came up during our stake council calendaring meeting back in November. Whom should rank-and-file members of the stake contact to schedule personal events?
If the event really is personal and private and not a ward or stake event, then yes, I can see the building scheduler creating such an event on a private calendar. Another solution is to have the stake executive secretary schedule the event on a private calendar.

drepouille wrote:That is a question that came up during our stake council calendaring meeting back in November. Whom should rank-and-file members of the stake contact to schedule personal events?

Depends on how your ward/stake decides to set that up. In our stake, it's mostly the Stake Executive Secretary.

If we're trying to figure out what to put in the documentation, I'd say check with a member of the bishopric for local procedures.

drepouille wrote:That is a question that came up during our stake council calendaring meeting back in November. Whom should rank-and-file members of the stake contact to schedule personal events?

The solution I think is best is for each ward to have their own private event calendar and the clerks, exec Sec, or ward calendar coordinator schedules private events. They could even do this for people outside of the stake boundaries.

drepouille wrote:If the event really is personal and private and not a ward or stake event, then yes, I can see the building scheduler creating such an event on a private calendar.

I think its best to not have building schedulers assigned but keep those responsibilities in the Stake Clerks Office.

drepouille wrote:Another solution is to have the stake executive secretary schedule the event on a private calendar.

Since the Stake Clerks are responsible for building scheduling the Stake Exec Sec should not be involved at all. JMO

Gary_Miller wrote:Since the Stake Clerks are responsible for building scheduling the Stake Exec Sec should not be involved at all. JMO

I've got no problem if a stake want to run their operation this way, but the thread did start with the idea of updating the documentation. As such, I wouldn't be comfortable assigning roles beyond what's in the Handbook or defined by the software.

Gary_Miller wrote:

drepouille wrote:That is a question that came up during our stake council calendaring meeting back in November. Whom should rank-and-file members of the stake contact to schedule personal events?

The solution I think is best is for each ward to have their own private event calendar and the clerks, exec Sec, or ward calendar coordinator schedules private events.

We certainly like keeping as much scheduling as possible at the ward level. So I agree with this approach in general.

The biggest challenge we have with this is that the Calendar draws too much attention to the building scheduler by making his or her name and contact info accessible via the dropdown by the Location name. That gives people the false impression that they should contact the buildings scheduler to schedule the building (and yes, the misleading title "building scheduler" for that role doesn't help, either).

Gary_Miller wrote:They could even do this for people outside of the stake boundaries.

Although that's certainly possible if your stake chooses to operate that way, for these rare occasions our stake leaders like someone at the stake level (usually me) to be aware that someone from outside our stake is using our buildings. It may be required to get a Hold Harmless Agreement signed, or the stake president may deny the use.

Gary_Miller wrote:Since the Stake Clerks are responsible for building scheduling the Stake Exec Sec should not be involved at all. JMO

About a year ago, I switched from Exec Sec to Stake Clerk. When I was Exec Sec, I managed the calendar and all other stake web sites. I have been trying to establish the rule in our stake that the Exec Sec is concerned with scheduling and planning for future events, while the Clerk is concerned with recording current and past events. I have tried extremely hard to offload the calendar to the new Exec Sec. It ain't working well.

One nice thing about making a member of the stake presidency a building scheduler - they automatically have admin rights to all calendars at the stake level. No additional permissions needed.

That allows them to create calendars as needed for private event functions, etc.

blackjf1 wrote:As part of this assignment I am over a team of church service missionaries asked to update the calendar help and also come with training for members on how to use calendar.

The most immediate need is to go though and replace "Reservation" with "Restriction". The software changed terminology, but the help file was never updated. That's the most glaring problem with the exiting file. The reason for the change was to help leaders understand the function.

If you're going to do a re-write, I'd like to put in a plug for teaching the members how to get the events on their personal calendar and in LDS Tools. I think this is a aspect that's largely ignored. It's a system that works even if the member has to work on Sundays or otherwise miss church. It gets events placed on a youth's calendar before competing events get scheduled. It also provides a solid reason for activities to be scheduled as events, not restrictions. (And in the process takes care of the building scheduling issue.)

blackjf1 wrote:The current help states that building schedulers cannot schedule events. This is totally false. The only reason Building schedulers cannot schedule events is because no one has added them as editors to a calendar.

I know others have addressed this in this thread but I want to take another approach to add another perspective and hopefully add some clarity. Since this thread is about updating the Calendar Help, then those writing the documentation need to fully and completely understand the roles in the application and the calling/assignment as a building scheduler.

The current help documentation is totally correct about the role of building scheduler in the application. Just like many other people dealing with the transition from the OLD traditional paper method of building scheduling, the quote above is confusing the calling/assignment an individual may have with the role in the application. The confusion is clear in the quote above because one Calendar role, building scheduler, is added to another Calendar role, editor, to create the building scheduler calling/assignment for an individual. Even the role as editor does not apply across calendars, except for the administrator role, without an individual or calling being given that role in each calendar. We need to make sure we differentiate the role in the Calendar application and the calling/assignment a member may be given.

The building scheduler role could be, and is in some stakes, combined with the administrator role to gain the greatest flexibility in managing unique situations. This is possible because the administrator role has by default the editor role permissions for all public calendars.

Others have quite adequately addressed the other points of confusion so I will stop here for now.

russellhltn wrote:

blackjf1 wrote:As part of this assignment I am over a team of church service missionaries asked to update the calendar help and also come with training for members on how to use calendar.

The most immediate need is to go though and replace "Reservation" with "Restriction". The software changed terminology, but the help file was never updated. That's the most glaring problem with the exiting file. The reason for the change was to help leaders understand the function.

I agree 100%. Lets not take another year to write and re-write the ultimate help document, lets go in tomorrow and remove and/or re-write those parts of the help that are inaccurate due to software changes RIGHT NOW!

As evidenced from the thread, terminology and BEST PRACTICES seem to be a moving target as you move from stake to stake. I think we all love seeing how others do things, so we can adopt and modify as fast as we are comfortable, rather than being told how wrong we are doing them.

Added afterthought: Threads like this are very helpful to me, as I can see what will work in my ward and my stake, and what I know won't: I'm not "forced" to promote something I know won't fly with my leaders here. I would hope new training gives options and ideas...

jdlessley wrote:I want to take another approach to add another perspective and hopefully add some clarity. Since this thread is about updating the Calendar Help, then those writing the documentation need to fully and completely understand the roles in the application and the calling/assignment as a building scheduler.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure as "role" is the best terminology. As we have observed, simply granting someone building scheduler rights in the application does not automatically give them rights they need to schedule events. And depending on what tasks they are expected to do, they will need additional rights to carry out their calling.

And since it's not possible to grant admin (or edit) access to the calendars of multiple wards, that forces a major re-think in the traditional assignments for a "building scheduler".

I'd also stay far away from calling anything a "building calendar". That tends to reinforce the mistaken belief that there should be a separate calendar for blocking off the use of the building. (Yet another hold-over from paper calendars.) The building schedule is the sum of all events taking place at a given location. It's calculated automatically and isn't something that is edited separately.

Another stumbling block is that "week view" is so different than "month view". "Week view" activates the ability to see the building schedule. Most people don't switch to week view because the don't expect to see anything they can't already see in month view.

Just for fun, I had a look at the Handbook. The phrase "Building scheduler" does not return anything. The best I could find is Handbook 2: 13.2.7

Church activities should be planned as far in advance as reasonable. They should be included on the stake or ward calendar. Leaders should keep parents informed of activities for children and youth.

If an activity will be held at a meetinghouse or another Church facility, planners reserve the facility in advance to avoid conflicts with other activities or meetings. Each meetinghouse has an agent bishop assigned by the stake presidency. He oversees the scheduling of the meetinghouse facilities, though he usually appoints another person to do the actual scheduling.

That's as close I can I find to a "building scheduler". However, I maintain that since the Handbook was written, the church servers have taken on much of the active day-to-day role. "Building schedulers" have mostly become mostly referees for conflicts and for scheduling family events.

russellhltn wrote:

Gary_Miller wrote:Since the Stake Clerks are responsible for building scheduling the Stake Exec Sec should not be involved at all. JMO

I've got no problem if a stake want to run their operation this way, but the thread did start with the idea of updating the documentation. As such, I wouldn't be comfortable assigning roles beyond what's in the Handbook or defined by the software.

I think what I stated is in line with the Handbook and the software. If not please let me know where I may have gone wrong.

Gary_Miller wrote:

russellhltn wrote:

Gary_Miller wrote:Since the Stake Clerks are responsible for building scheduling the Stake Exec Sec should not be involved at all. JMO

I've got no problem if a stake want to run their operation this way, but the thread did start with the idea of updating the documentation. As such, I wouldn't be comfortable assigning roles beyond what's in the Handbook or defined by the software.

I think what I stated is in line with the Handbook and the software. If not please let me know where I may have gone wrong.

I am not aware of any place in the Handbook that makes the stake clerks responsible for building scheduling and that the executive secretary should not be involved at all. I think russellhltn is merely suggesting that, since there is no such restriction in the Handbook, there should not be a restriction in the help information. There is nothing saying the clerks can't do it, but there is nothing requiring it, either.

As a matter of interest, I have never lived anywhere that the clerks had anything to do with the calendar. Everywhere I have lived, the executive secretary was the responsible person.

I think either way might work just fine. The Handbook simply says that the bishop usually assigns "another person". It does not specify who should be assigned.

Gary_Miller wrote:

russellhltn wrote:

Gary_Miller wrote:Since the Stake Clerks are responsible for building scheduling the Stake Exec Sec should not be involved at all. JMO

I've got no problem if a stake want to run their operation this way, but the thread did start with the idea of updating the documentation. As such, I wouldn't be comfortable assigning roles beyond what's in the Handbook or defined by the software.

I think what I stated is in line with the Handbook and the software. If not please let me know where I may have gone wrong.

lajackson beat me to this, but I'll make my post anyway, since it amplifies the point.

I can't find anything in the Handbook that says that stake clerks are responsible for building scheduling, except HB1, 13.3.2, which says that the stake president may ask clerks to maintain the stake website. There is certainly nothing that says the stake executive secretary "should not be involved at all." If the stake president chooses to ask the stake executive secretary to maintain the calendar, that makes just as much sense as asking a clerk to do so. Both seem to me to be equally within the stake president's prerogatives.

But if you can point us to a Handbook statement that makes it clear that only clerks should deal with building scheduling, or that executive secretaries should not, then I'd love to be educated.

Our stake has 4 buildings. One building is shared with a neighboring stake and we have one ward in a different neighboring stake's building.

We use building schedulers to maintain a publicly visible building calendar for each building (this is a stake calendar). This calendar is where wedding receptions, funerals, and special events are entered.

Once the restrictions are entered on the building calendar the building scheduler's responsibility becomes one of assisting the special requests get scheduled and negotiating conflicts.

Each ward maintains their own calendars. We offer training at the beginning of each year and we try to keep people abreast of changes that occur.

This is working well in our stake.

One issue that I would like to note, restricting roles to Executive Secretaries or Clerks makes it so that women cannot do this task.

Updating the terminology "Restrictions" vs."Reservations" would be my first priority. The best use suggestions should include many ways of using the calendaring system and letting each stake decide what would work for them.

aebrown wrote:But if you can point us to a Handbook statement that makes it clear that only clerks should deal with building scheduling, or that executive secretaries should not, then I'd love to be educated.

Mostly I thought that the calendar helps put the responsibility on the clerks. However, a quick review proved other wise the helps just use the term "administrator" which I had previously over looked. I guess because in my stake everything to do with computers or computer programs are taken care of by the Stake Technology Specialist's who are all Assistant Stake Clerks by calling. I just assumed that is the way it was suppose to be, but I can see where it could be assigned to others.

Gary_Miller wrote:that is the way it was suppose to be

I think it is easy to confuse what the software makes possible, and what is "suppose to be."

The LDS.org calendar makes possible a far more efficient way to calendar events and notify membership of them, but the ultimate goal gives perspective. The way it is "suppose to be" is stated in Handbook 2, beginning with chapter one, and it speaks more of purposes, less of specifics in my mind. If one stake has a building scheduler for each building, appointed by the agent Bishop, and another stake has none, does that take away from the purposes of activities of either stake?

Activities at the ward, stake, and multistake levels bring Church members together as “fellowcitizens with the saints” (Ephesians 2:19). In addition to providing fun and entertainment, activities should build testimonies, strengthen families, and foster unity and personal growth. Handbook 2: 13.1

"The stake should create a building calendar for each of the shared buildings in the stake and make the building schedulers editors on these building calendars. Then building schedulers can schedule building events such as weddings, funerals, etc and everyone can see these events."

Does the above statement mean that it is possible to create a calendar just for a particular building? Has the system become advanced enough for that? For several years I have wanted such a calendar. One for each building that could be viewed only by the wards that meet in that building. Currently, we have a "private events" calendar but it is part of the list of stake calendars so,weddings, funerals and other private events are seen across the stake and not just on the the calendars in a particular building.

Each of our building calendars use a Stake Level calendar. We hope members of each ward subscribe to these calendars.

This is the calendar that I put the restrictions on for all the wards.

Wards outside the building, but still in the stake (and neighboring stake that uses the building) can view the calendar, they can request events in the building if they need it.

This is how our stake has chosen to implement the use of the calendars and it works well for us. Visibility on the calendars is important to us and once it was up and running I as the building scheduler get just a few requests a month.

nancypalemany wrote:"The stake should create a building calendar for each of the shared buildings in the stake and make the building schedulers editors on these building calendars. Then building schedulers can schedule building events such as weddings, funerals, etc and everyone can see these events."

Does the above statement mean that it is possible to create a calendar just for a particular building? Has the system become advanced enough for that? For several years I have wanted such a calendar. One for each building that could be viewed only by the wards that meet in that building. Currently, we have a "private events" calendar but it is part of the list of stake calendars so,weddings, funerals and other private events are seen across the stake and not just on the the calendars in a particular building.

No, you can't create a calendar for a particular building. All you can create are stake or ward calendars.

For "private events" you can do what you are doing, or two other options come to mind:

• Make those stake calendars private, and make sure that the right people have View and Edit permissions for those calendars. That will hide the events from everyone, unless they go into Week View, and check the appropriate Locations box.
• In my opinion, the far better option is to let someone at the ward level schedule these events. Very often a funeral should be on a public ward calendar anyway. Truly private events can be put on a private ward calendar. That way the person requesting the private event is working with someone in their ward, whom they're more likely to know and be comfortable working with. I see no reason to have someone outside the ward scheduling any non-stake events.

sharicarnahan wrote:Each of our building calendars use a Stake Level calendar. We hope members of each ward subscribe to these calendars.

This is the calendar that I put the restrictions on for all the wards.

I don't understand what you mean by putting restrictions on a calendar. There's no connection between restrictions and any calendar -- restrictions are only connected to a building, and to the unit the restriction is made for.

Perhaps you meant something other than Restrictions when you said "This is the calendar that I put the restrictions on for all the wards."

nancypalemany wrote:Does the above statement mean that it is possible to create a calendar just for a particular building? Has the system become advanced enough for that?

No, and no. The statement you quoted is somewhere between misleading and wrong.

The best way to view the activities in a building is to switch to week mode and activate the location on the left hand side. This is available to anyone in the stake for any building.

---there are other ways to solve this problem than turning building schedulers into calendar editors. I would hope that the new help documents and training will reflect this.

It is good to see some activity going on concerning the role of the Building Scheduler! I am of the opinion the title of “Building Scheduler” is not descriptive and should be changed to something else. I have not really come up with a good title. The name of referee, or restrictions implementer, might get some ideas going? I am sure that many of you could come up with a much better descriptive name.

The roles of the “Building Scheduler” as I have learned through many of the post on the forum are basically used one of 2 ways:

1. Called as a “Building Scheduler”, probably by the agent bishop. (probably someone in the agent bishops ward) The Stake Administrator enters them into the system and gives them an assigned building. Is then given training and supervision one of two ways; the agent bishop or the Stake administrator which might be titled the “Stake Calendar Coordinator” or both.

2. No one is called as the “Building Scheduler”. The building scheduler rights are given to a Stake Administrator (probably the Stake Calendar Coordinator) and the building scheduler duties are performed by this person.

Question: Are there any other ways that a building scheduler duty could be achieved? That would not be an abuse or incorrect way of using the system?

1968leocomeeatabite wrote:I have not really come up with a good title. The name of referee, or restrictions implementer, might get some ideas going? I am sure that many of you could come up with a much better descriptive name.

Perhaps Building Scheduling Manager. Building Manager might work, but it tends to suggest a role too much like the Physical Facilities Representative. I add "Manger" as a way of communicating "overseer" rather than "doer". Although Building Scheduling Supervisor could work too.

1968leocomeeatabite wrote:I am of the opinion the title of “Building Scheduler” is not descriptive and should be changed to something else. I have not really come up with a good title. The name of referee, or restrictions implementer, might get some ideas going? I am sure that many of you could come up with a much better descriptive name.

The key, I think, is to come up with a title that doesn't promise too much. The term "Building Scheduler" implies people in this role will schedule the building, when they do no such thing. The term "Manager" or "Supervisor" implies that building schedulers have some authority over other people, which they do not.

Although my stake uses the term "Coordinator" in a different way, perhaps something along those lines would work. That word doesn't imply any direct-line authority over other people, but it does imply that he or she works with others, which is certainly the case. Perhaps something like "Arbitrator" or "Mediator" could work, but that doesn't say much about the role of creating restrictions.

aebrown wrote:The term "Manager" or "Supervisor" implies that building schedulers have some authority over other people, which they do not.

They do have authority over the building and the events that take place there.

I'm not sure as "coordinator" is an improvement as it still suggests them as a "go to" person where "manager" or "supervisor" suggests to me that things should be handled some other way before going to them.

They do have authority over the building and the events that take place there.

If I understand it correctly they do have authority to make the restrictions for the ward assigned. But that direction is coming from the agent bishop and or the Stake leadership. Also the building scheduler can edit existing events that a calendar editor has already established. Which is fairly authoritative. BUT I THINK THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE DOWNPLAYED and give the building scheduler a minimal role as far as the descriptive title he has should suggest. Therefore in an effort to change the feeling that one gets which In my opinion what needs to happen, I propose that we move in a direction that suggests the building scheduler is an assistant to a calendar editor. That is the goal of the calendar to have the calendar editors be in charge of the calendar. Where as the building scheduler is there to assist in the smooth transition of conflicts or future know assignments of building and rooms, which is a duty with very little to do.

So again in my very humble un-experience opinion, I am suggesting the title might go in the direction of assistant calendar editor. Does this imply that we want the editors to have the feeling that they are in-charge of the happenings of the unit, and that the building scheduler is there to help them if something goes wrong. (Give them relief if they forgot to do there job or someone was a little reckless and got aggressive.)

So my opinion is developing here, maybe a long title might describe it as assistant calendar editor reviewer. or calendar reviewer. Reviewer is somewhat of a synonym of referee or arbitrator. So reviewer kinda gives the ideas of a judge that will review the case or conflict and make a decision to make all parties happy. maybe from that we could go with editor review. Now maybe we are transitioning to not a title or calling but the process of what happens editor review.

"Editor Review" could it take away all the confusion? Could it give the feeling of: Here is the process that has been put in place to help me get my calendar events scheduled in good order, so if I do my part all will work and the activities will go smooth. It does not seem to describe a person but a process which just might do the trick. What do you guys think?

1968leocomeeatabite wrote:I am suggesting the title might go in the direction of assistant calendar editor.

The problem with that is it inverts the authority level. And that's not correct.

1968leocomeeatabite wrote:Reviewer is somewhat of a synonym of referee or arbitrator.

I like Building Schedule Arbitrator. It's descriptive in that the responsibility is still the building schedule, not the individual unit schedule. And it implies that there should be a step prior to going to the arbitrator.

The problem with that is it inverts the authority level. And that's not correct.

Would you explain.

What is wrong with giving the role of the building schedule very little authority? Are we talking how each one of us view it or is there something that I do not understand? Could it be that the problem is in how the perception of this authority lies?

1968leocomeeatabite wrote:

1968leocomeeatabite wrote:I am suggesting the title might go in the direction of assistant calendar editor.

The problem with that is it inverts the authority level. And that's not correct.

Would you explain.

Every time I've see a position called "assistant XYZ", then they exist to assist the person with the title of "XYZ". "XYZ" has full authority over the assistant and decides what tasks they are given.

Attempting to call the Building Scheduler a "assistant calendar editor", just doesn't work. A Calendar Editor has no authority over that position and they can't assign tasks to them. It could be argued that the Building Scheduler has superior rights to a Ward Calendar Editor. If true, then the "assistant XYZ" has more power than "XYZ". That's what I meant by inverting the authority level.

I'm not comfortable calling them a "Calender Editor Supervisor" or "Trainer". Certainly that function can be added, but it's not the core role of the Building Scheduler. Their core role is to manage the scheduling of the building between multiple units.

Building Coordinator is a accurate description, but I'm concerned that it's not a big enough break from "Scheduler" to change people's thinking. But I guess it's an improvement over trying to convince people that a old position has a new role.

1968leocomeeatabite wrote:

The problem with that is it inverts the authority level. And that's not correct.

Would you explain.

I don't think it's at all correct to say that it inverts the authority level. In many ways, a calendar editor has more power than a building scheduler -- after all, an editor can create an event, but a building scheduler cannot.

But I also disagree with calling a building scheduler is an "assistant calendar editor"; a building editor is certainly not below a calendar editor. Generally an "assistant" to a person has a subset of the authority that the person has. That's not the case here.

Building Scheduler and Calendar Editor are mostly distinct roles. There's a small amount of overlap in the ability to edit existing events, but I think it's confusing to say that a building scheduler supervises/manages editors, just as it is confusing to say that a building scheduler assists editors.

Attempting to call the Building Scheduler a "assistant calendar editor", just doesn't work. A Calendar Editor has no authority over that position and they can't assign tasks to them.

Thank you! I see what you are saying and it makes a lot of sense and I agree.

So if the goal is, to take away the confusion and give the Building scheduler responsibilities a situation that will function but might not be so visible. What if the role was taken away as far as the help section was concerned in the section where the 4 different roles are explained. You give that responsibility to the Stake Administrator or a Ward administrator (agent ward) and in a section of the help connected to scheduling an event you explain the process that a reviewer (Stake or Ward Administrator) (current building scheduler rights) can help the editor as certain criteria occurs. I have limited knowledge of course, but the idea is to get this role more hidden and covered or in a more realistic light for the concepts already express in this thread and many others threads about the struggle with building scheduler. Thank you It just seems like the only way to deal with this, as many others have expressed, is to get rid or make it less visible in the program. Maybe take the position away but keep the feature and give it more of a process than a calling or title.

1968leocomeeatabite wrote:What if the role was taken away as far as the help section was concerned in the section where the 4 different roles are explained.

That's a documentation question. I'm open to changes there, but I'm not sure as hiding it will help people understand the change.

This brings us back full circle to the start of this thread. It looked like Jed was going to be updating things, but he hasn't posted since he started this thread. I hope we haven't scared him off.

There are a number of tasks that can be added to the building scheduler role, such as scheduling private events. But that falls under how the stakes want to organize themselves as opposed to dictated by policy or the way the software works.

aebrown wrote: I think it's confusing to say that a building scheduler supervises/manages editors, just as it is confusing to say that a building scheduler assists editors.

Thank you both russellhltn and aebrown. I agree with your points. I stand corrected.

But as far as progressing with the renaming of the building scheduler.

take the position away but keep the feature and give it more of a process than a calling or title.

That's a documentation question. I'm open to changes there, but I'm not sure as hiding it will help people understand the change.

I guess at this point a change like that you would want to consider the---What would happen if we did this---
But even if the building scheduler role was taken from the 4 roles in the help section and then give it another name and insert it at a different place in the help section. I am thinking that would give it a desired effect.

The attachment below is of my own making. It is a word document. It is my effort to communicate the implementation of the lds.org calendar into the Stake. I post it here to show one way of dealing with the role of the building Scheduler. your comments are welcome and encouraged. Maybe I will post it in another place to see if it will stimulate some discussion of the title of my document.

Your model described in the document states the ward calendar coordinator "chedules events and pubishes calendar as needed" and at the same time states there are ward calendar editors. Giving the role of calendar editor to the ward calendar coordinator for all calendars falls back to the old single point of scheduling model used for paper scheduling. At the same time your model is promoting the current distributed scheduling model used by the online Calendar. Using both models together will most likely confuse, or be confusing to, ward members. Some will hold on to the old, and outdated, single point of scheduling model while others may try to use the new distributed scheduling model. Unfortunately the old and outdated single point of scheduling may dominate because that is what members have been use to using for so long before the current online Calendar was deployed.

jdlessley wrote:Giving the role of calendar editor to the ward calendar coordinator for all calendars falls back to the old single point of scheduling model used for paper scheduling. At the same time your model is promoting the current distributed scheduling model used by the online Calendar.

I'd suggest changing the wording to "chedules events and publishes calendar to the extent not handled by the other calendar editors".

That is, I can it happening both way depending on computer sills, availability and comfort level of the various auxiliaries.

Thank you, excellent comments! I will consider how to say it more correctly and then edit it accordingly. I greatly appreciate the input of the last two post!

It has been many months (since last post), but here we are into the fall of the year, and beginning to prepare for next year and many calendar events. Here is another attachment similar to the one above but made some changes. One change is that this model the role of the building scheduler is given to a Stake administrator.
Again please give me your feed back. We are again getting ready to train the wards on how to implement the calendar.

This attachment is simalar to the last one but gives options for a couple of different ways for the building scheduler to function. again please feel free to give your comments and suggestions.

No.docx:

lds.org is misspelled.

No mention of calendar layers at the stake level. I'd expect the stake-level responsibility to largely mirror what is stated at the ward level.

Options.docx:

No mention of calendar layers at the stake level. I'd expect the stake-level responsibility to largely mirror what is stated at the ward level.

---------

No mention is made of what do do about private events.

I'd like to see more emphasis made on organizing the calendar so that the layers work for the members. Use the calendar system and it's sync to keep the ward notified of events. Rather than focusing on building scheduling as the driving force, focus on notifying members and the building scheduling comes with it.

Thank you, russellhltn your diligence and knowledge is ever appreciated.

Hi,

I'm a Stake Clerk and read this thread hoping to find answers to a couple questions. I did glean quite a bit of good info from this, but didn't see anything answering my questions. I think they are related enough to add to this thread, so here goes:

1. Do the standard calling names in MLS of "Stake Scheduler - Building 1", "Stake Scheduler - Building 2", etc., have anything to do with the roles of Building Scheduler that are set up in Calendar->Settings->Locations & Rooms?

2. For these MLS calling names, how can I find out which building in the stake corresponds to "Building 1", "Building 2", etc.? Or is there no exact linking of Building X to the actual buildings in the stake?

lexolox3 wrote:Hi,

I'm a Stake Clerk and read this thread hoping to find answers to a couple questions. I did glean quite a bit of good info from this, but didn't see anything answering my questions. I think they are related enough to add to this thread, so here goes:

1. Do the standard calling names in MLS of "Stake Scheduler - Building 1", "Stake Scheduler - Building 2", etc., have anything to do with the roles of Building Scheduler that are set up in Calendar->Settings->Locations & Rooms?

No, there is no connection.

lexolox3 wrote: 2. For these MLS calling names, how can I find out which building in the stake corresponds to "Building 1", "Building 2", etc.? Or is there no exact linking of Building X to the actual buildings in the stake?

Again, there is no connection between the Building X designations and the building names used in the calendar. Your stake may use an informal assignment but that isn't represented in the computer systems in any way.

eblood66 wrote:

lexolox3 wrote: 2. For these MLS calling names, how can I find out which building in the stake corresponds to "Building 1", "Building 2", etc.? Or is there no exact linking of Building X to the actual buildings in the stake?

Again, there is no connection between the Building X designations and the building names used in the calendar. Your stake may use an informal assignment but that isn't represented in the computer systems in any way.

eblood66 is correct, but I know it seems counter-intuitive.
Our building schedulers accidentally were "released" in MLS from their schedulers calling, but performed their services just fine because they were still set-up in the calendar as building schedulers.

In almost every other area of LDS.org, access is granted based on standard callings in MLS, which then "feed" lds.org, and when you log on into LDS.org, it recognizes you and grants your permissions based on your callings. We are always told to be sure to enter callings properly in MLS for this reason. Not so with the Building Schedulers calling in the calendar. They certainly can be in MLS, but they MUST be specified within the calendar in addition, at least currently. It could change with any update!

So, this is one case currently that "there is no connection between the Building X designations (MLS) and the building names used in the calendar (LDS.org.)"

I wish we could add Building Schedulers by calling name to the Locations & Rooms. However, we can only add Building Schedulers using the person's name.

On the other hand, when I create private calendars for Building Schedulers to create private events, I add the Building Schedulers by calling name as Editors of those private calendars.