Bishopric Access to Membership record move function

We have a small ward and members of the bishopric often have to pick up the slack for our ward clerk. I have noticed that as a member of the bishopric, I can only move records out of the ward in MLS on the ward computer. I cannot access the function at lds.org. Am I doing something wrong? If not, why is that functionality not available to bishopric members on the website?

This message thread may help you understand why bishopric counselors do not have the level of access you request:
https://tech.lds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=116&t=19317#

In other threads similar to this one, where a clerk is not available or not functioning, aebrown has suggested that the stake president and bishop may allow you to set up a bishopric counselor as the ward clerk or an assistant ward clerk until a new clerk can be installed.

See https://tech.lds.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 37#p119337

Ok, I am just a backwoods country lawyer, but I cannot find a relationship between the cited handbook section 13.6 paragraph 5 and bishopric access to the membership record move functionality. I don't even have to access the membership record in MLS to move it. I just go through a dialog asking for new address, ward, stake, etc., and send it. Is it different for the web interface? Would that access open access to some other restricted information?

Handling membership records is a clerk responsibility. Allowing any bishopric member to move records could lead to "too many cooks in the kitchen" for most wards. Either a ward clerk or assistant clerk - membership can move it. If you're taking on added responsibilities, then you need to get the calling that matches.

MLS is flexible about assigning user rights. The on-line system has no such flexibility.

lewtippett wrote:Ok, I am just a backwoods country lawyer, but I cannot find a relationship between the cited handbook section 13.6 paragraph 5 and bishopric access to the membership record move functionality. I don't even have to access the membership record in MLS to move it. I just go through a dialog asking for new address, ward, stake, etc., and send it.

Well, it certainly seems to me that the ability to change a membership record will require at the very least all the permissions required to view a membership record. Since moving a record most certainly changes it, I can't imagine that anyone outside those people listed in HB1, 13.6, would have the ability to move a record.

lewtippett wrote:Is it different for the web interface?

The web interface enforces permissions based on calling; MLS mostly enforces permissions based on the rights granted to a user by an administrator.

lewtippett wrote:Would that access open access to some other restricted information?

No, but I think that's irrelevant. The issue is who should be able to move/change a membership record, not what other information the act of moving a record might expose.

Yes, but all I am changing is the address and unit assignment. I have access to update the address information via the web interface now. I can change the address and contact information with my current access privileges. The one issue that I have just thought of is the option to mark/flag the record for new bishop to contact previous bishop. Although the cited reference really doesn't cover that point, it is a legitimate confidentiality point that would make the restriction make sense. I think that I will go with that since it makes more sense.

lewtippett wrote:Yes, but all I am changing is the address and unit assignment.

My point was that changing the unit assignment is a big deal, and should not be accessible to people who by Handbook policy are not even supposed to be able to see the membership record, let alone change what unit the member is in.

But in any case, I certainly think you've raised a good point that the person moving the record should have the ability to specify the option of whether the new bishop should contact the current bishop, and that is a relevant confidentiality issue.

Being able to move the record without being able to see the record also creates an information leakage vulnerability. If I can't see whether a record has a move restriction on it but have access to move a record, I could try to test for the presence of a move restriction by trying to move the record.

lewtippett wrote:Ok, I am just a backwoods country lawyer,

Not from the south, I hope. <wink> (Great, now I'll have that song in my head for the rest of the day.)

You can argue your case all you want, but you're in the wrong court. The developers do not have a free hand in this. This is developed under the supervision and according to the polices of the Priesthood Department.

What they'd probably tell you is that a councilor is not greater than a clerk. They have different roles. If you want the powers of a clerk, you need to become a clerk. Only the bishop holds all the keys of the ward. It seems to me that a dual-role is the best way to go to deal with your short-handed situation without messing it up for the majority.