Recording releases and new callings...

As a recently called assistant membership clerk I can't seem to find guidance for who is responsible for recording releases and new callings. We had a couple of releases and new callings announced from the pulpit today and I went scrambling for my notepad. Seems to me that the ward clerk sits in on bishopric meetings and knows this information prior to announcement. Should the ward clerk be responsible for this information input into MLS or is it the membership clerk ?

dbyram wrote:As a recently called assistant membership clerk I can't seem to find guidance for who is responsible for recording releases and new callings. We had a couple of releases and new callings announced from the pulpit today and I went scrambling for my notepad. Seems to me that the ward clerk sits in on bishopric meetings and knows this information prior to announcement. Should the ward clerk be responsible for this information input into MLS or is it the membership clerk ?

It's up to the bishop (in consultation with the ward clerk) to determine who maintains the callings. Personally as ward clerk I maintain callings myself but there is no specific direction on who should do it.

So talk to your bishop and ward clerk just ask if they want you to do it.

A clerk should be entering the callings/releases in MLS and keeping it up to date. As the ward clerk, I do it myself, but I can certainly delegate it to an assistant clerk. Being present at bishopric meetings makes it a little easier to maintain, however on occasion a member of the bishopric might set somebody apart and forget to tell me. So, I regularly review the 'Members with Callings' list with them to make sure I didn't miss anybody.

Now, when I was an assistant clerk, the ward clerk had me maintain the callings/releases. It was a challenge because I was not at the bishopric meetings and our bishopric (including the ward clerk) at the time also had the habit of forgetting to tell me. Sometimes I was able to pay attention during the announcements in Sacrament Meeting, but I was often distracted with our small children and didn't always hear. So, I was constantly asking the bishopric if anybody was called/released or set apart.

jasonfitt wrote: Now, when I was an assistant clerk, the ward clerk had me maintain the callings/releases. It was a challenge because I was not at the bishopric meetings and our bishopric (including the ward clerk) at the time also had the habit of forgetting to tell me. Sometimes I was able to pay attention during the announcements in Sacrament Meeting, but I was often distracted with our small children and didn't always hear. So, I was constantly asking the bishopric if anybody was called/released or set apart.

It is useful if the bishopric member conducting the meeting is reading the details of ward business from a scripted form. Ours is kept in a ring binder, which becomes the best source for entering callings and releases. Recording setting-apart events is a whole different problem.

RossEvans wrote:

jasonfitt wrote: Now, when I was an assistant clerk, the ward clerk had me maintain the callings/releases. It was a challenge because I was not at the bishopric meetings and our bishopric (including the ward clerk) at the time also had the habit of forgetting to tell me. Sometimes I was able to pay attention during the announcements in Sacrament Meeting, but I was often distracted with our small children and didn't always hear. So, I was constantly asking the bishopric if anybody was called/released or set apart.

It is useful if the bishopric member conducting the meeting is reading the details of ward business from a scripted form. Ours is kept in a ring binder, which becomes the best source for entering callings and releases. Recording setting-apart events is a whole different problem.

Something like a binder is a good idea. What we do is use a spreadsheet in Google Docs, which has an app members of the bishopric can download to their mobile devices. Everybody can update it and I use that to then update MLS.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some kind of a workflow app that we could record everything in. Simple, Calling entered in... assigned to Bishopric, 1st or 2nd, release extended to current calling occupant, sustained, set apart --> THEN entered into MLS automatically

Works for SP Also - we already have a workflow in the disciplinary area... sure would be nice to be consistent, avoid all the silly errors (which USUALLY result in either hurt feelings or people wondering if the Bishopric has a clue).

jasonfitt wrote: Something like a binder is a good idea. What we do is use a spreadsheet in Google Docs, which has an app members of the bishopric can download to their mobile devices. Everybody can update it and I use that to then update MLS.

Using Google Docs (Google Drive) would certainly be efficient. But I fear that tracking callings and releases this way would be prohibited by recent policy changes, since that application seems like it is storing "any membership-related data" in the cloud. This is one more case where implementing the new Meetinghouse Technology Policy will limit the productivity of local leaders.

johnshaw wrote:Wouldn't it be nice to have some kind of a workflow app that we could record everything in. Simple, Calling entered in... assigned to Bishopric, 1st or 2nd, release extended to current calling occupant, sustained, set apart --> THEN entered into MLS automatically

That would be handy indeed. Maybe we can hope for it several years from now, after all current MLS functionality is migrated to the web.

RossEvans wrote:

jasonfitt wrote: Something like a binder is a good idea. What we do is use a spreadsheet in Google Docs, which has an app members of the bishopric can download to their mobile devices. Everybody can update it and I use that to then update MLS.

Using Google Docs (Google Drive) would certainly be efficient. But I fear that tracking callings and releases this way would be prohibited by recent policy changes, since that application seems like it is storing "any membership-related data" in the cloud. This is one more case where implementing the new Meetinghouse Technology Policy will limit the productivity of local leaders.

Does storing calling information on the cloud violate that policy since callings are announced in sacrament and basically public knowledge? I guess if it says "any membership-related data" then it probably is. We would have to go back to the binder.

jasonfitt wrote: Does storing calling information on the cloud violate that policy since callings are announced in sacrament and basically public knowledge? I guess if it says "any membership-related data" then it probably is. We would have to go back to the binder.

I think you answered your own question. The policy states (my boldface emphasis):

4.8.4 The use of cloud-based services for storing and/or backing up MLS or any membership related data is prohibited.

In my opinion callings are "membership related" because MLS membership data includes this information. That does not necessarily apply to everything else that occurs in Sacrament Meeting, such as speakers.

But my opinion is not authoritative. (FWIW, in our ward we did interpret the policy to rule out storing a file of members without callings on Google Drive, which had been very useful for auxiliary presidencies as well as the bishopric.) Different unit leaders have implemented many different ideas for storing stuff on the cloud, and I think each case must be analyzed on its own to determine compliance. If you need an authoritative opinion, the policy document's Roles and Responsibilities section states that your stake president "understands and enforces" it.

johnshaw wrote:Wouldn't it be nice to have some kind of a workflow app that we could record everything in. Simple, Calling entered in... assigned to Bishopric, 1st or 2nd, release extended to current calling occupant, sustained, set apart --> THEN entered into MLS automatically

Works for SP Also - we already have a workflow in the disciplinary area... sure would be nice to be consistent, avoid all the silly errors (which USUALLY result in either hurt feelings or people wondering if the Bishopric has a clue).

We have discussed it, but at this time getting it so you can edit callings via Clerk Resources is a higher priority (one of these years we will actually get there :rolleyes: ).

johnshaw wrote:Wouldn't it be nice to have some kind of a workflow app that we could record everything in. Simple, Calling entered in... assigned to Bishopric, 1st or 2nd, release extended to current calling occupant, sustained, set apart --> THEN entered into MLS automatically

I think it's a good idea, but it implies that one workflow works for everyone. This could easily turn into a "be careful what you wish for" situation.

RossEvans wrote:In my opinion callings are "membership related" because MLS membership data includes this information. That does not necessarily apply to everything else that occurs in Sacrament Meeting, such as speakers.

Taken to an extreme, even the names of members, such as in a list of speakers, could be considered membership data.

sbradshaw wrote:

RossEvans wrote:In my opinion callings are "membership related" because MLS membership data includes this information. That does not necessarily apply to everything else that occurs in Sacrament Meeting, such as speakers.

Taken to an extreme, even the names of members, such as in a list of speakers, could be considered membership data.

I am not inclined to take it "to an extreme," and prefer to hew to the letter of the policy. But as I said above, my opinion is not authoritative. If you need an authoritative answer to that hypothetical question in your stake, ask your stake president.

russellhltn wrote:

johnshaw wrote:Wouldn't it be nice to have some kind of a workflow app that we could record everything in. Simple, Calling entered in... assigned to Bishopric, 1st or 2nd, release extended to current calling occupant, sustained, set apart --> THEN entered into MLS automatically

I think it's a good idea, but it implies that one workflow works for everyone. This could easily turn into a "be careful what you wish for" situation.

Once a calling is 'approved' by the bishopric it seems like the remaining information is

• person responsible to issue the call
  flag or date for call extended
  maybe a flag for call accepted
  link to any callings to be released

You would want some way to prepare lists from this

• calls each person is assigned to extend
  calls/releases ready for sustaining

and a simple way to say they were sustained and have that become the official calling in CDOL. The setting apart would need to be recorded after that.

Ideas on other data that would be useful in this process?

jonesrk wrote:Ideas on other data that would be useful in this process?

As JohnShaw mentioned, the release needs to be extended to someone (if someone has the calling currently), which implies a person being assigned to extend the release, and a workflow step to record that it was done. You may have intended to imply all this by "link to any callings to be released," but I thought I'd make it explicit.

Also, for stake callings, the bishop needs to be consulted.

Also, for priesthood ordinations, there is a workflow as well. I'm not trying to goldplate the requirements here, but if someone is starting to think about this, it might be good to envision a design general enough to handle AP ordinations at the ward level, and MP ordinations at the stake level (which is quite different).

aebrown wrote:it might be good to envision a design general enough to handle AP ordinations at the ward level, and MP ordinations at the stake level (which is quite different).

Agreed. It is already confusing enough that the MP ordination record instructs the bearer to give the completed form to the ward clerk, when the stake clerk has an equal need to receive a copy of the completed form. This ambiguity consistently trips up new high councilors, who think their responsibility is finished when they hand the completed form to the ward clerk.