Logistical problem for stake conference

I was informed by our stake presidency that a member of the stake presidency must be in each location that we are broadcasting in for the sustaining of the leadership. Is this accurate? It doesn't seem correct to me for some reason.

Anyone else that has done successful webcast broadcast please chime in, this next stake conference we are doing in just 1 building, but the following one we are planning on broadcasting out to other buildings.

The sustaining is not just something for the members to do. If there is an objection, than some follow-up needs to happen. As such, I believe it correct that some leader needs to be present at each building to verify the sustaining. I don't know if it's required to be a member of the stake presidency. That would limit the number of buildings one could broadcast to.

Our entire Stake Presidency has always stayed in the Stake Center during Stake Conference webcasts. But each building has had at least one member of the High Council. I can't quote any official policy about this but I would be inclined to believe that, if there were an objection in a sustaining vote, then a member of the High Council could pass that along appropriately.

mrrad wrote:Our entire Stake Presidency has always stayed in the Stake Center during Stake Conference webcasts. But each building has had at least one member of the High Council. I can't quote any official policy about this but I would be inclined to believe that, if there were an objection in a sustaining vote, then a member of the High Council could pass that along appropriately.

Handbook 2, Section 19.3 discusses how "The leader who oversaw the calling, or a priesthood officer he authorizes, presents a person to the congregation for a sustaining vote." The later discussion of what to do in the case of a dissenting vote refers to " the presiding officer or another assigned priesthood officer." That clearly includes the possibility of delegating responsibility for handling sustaining votes.

It certainly seems clear to me that it is within the scope of the responsibilities the stake president may delegate to a high councilor (see Handbook 2, Section 15.3) that a high councilor could represent the stake presidency in monitoring the voting in a remote location, handling any dissenting votes, and reporting back to the stake presidency.

rl_albright, how does your stake handle changes at the stake level throughout the year? In my stake, it's handled by a HC in each of the ward sacrament meetings. If they can do that during the year, why not at stake conference?

russellhltn wrote:rl_albright, how does your stake handle changes at the stake level throughout the year? In my stake, it's handled by a HC in each of the ward sacrament meetings. If they can do that during the year, why not at stake conference?

The handbook suggests that having high councilors present general stake business in ward sacrament meetings is the exception, rather than the rule.

But to answer the specific question, we have a high councilor watch during the business. And when our broadcast failed last conference, we actually had him present the business again at the end of the broadcast.

lajackson wrote:The handbook suggests that having high councilors present general stake business in ward sacrament meetings is the exception, rather than the rule.

The exception you're talking about is not that a high councilor presents the stake business; what should be exceptional is presenting stake business in ward sacrament meetings instead of stake conference or stake general priesthood meeting. Once the stake has decided it needs to make that exception and present stake business in sacrament meetings, it's just fine to have a high councilor do it.

In this case, we're talking about a stake conference, so I don't see how the handbook provision about making rare exceptions applies.

Well I will just have to see what he decides for next stake conference, this one went really well with the new tech that was installed, and it hope that it continues for next time as well.