Membership Audit

i am a new Stake clerk and I have a question about membership audits. The previous stake clerk told me that the wards will complete the membership audits on their own. My role is to assist the wards if they need help.
After reading through the forums it seems like I'm supposed to physically go to each unit to conduct the membership audit, which is contrary to what I was told by our previous stake clerk. I'm just trying to understand my role, any help would be appreciated.

Thanks
Brother Lovell

Handbook 1: 13.6.24 says it's a Stake Clerk.

The Help Center's Conduct and Submit the Membership Record Audit has more details.

Based on step 12, it sounds like the bishop and ward clerk must be present, but it's a stake clerk who performs the audit – similar to the financial audit.

momasboy wrote:i am a new Stake clerk

Consult with your stake presidency. As the "new stake clerk," you are now responsible to both your stake presidency and to the Lord, so policies going forward should be as you direct.

momasboy wrote:The previous stake clerk told me that the wards will complete the membership audits on their own

We did that, but I regretted it and suggested we return. From my experience, this will guarantee a few late audits, and there is no guarantee of consistency of results. If you have ever sat in on a financial audit, imagine a ward clerk auditing his own financial clerk- Problems found are usually unknown by the ward, until pointed out by others who "examine" the books and practices. This is your opportunity to check the ward clerks understanding and perhaps pin-point any training needed. You might look at your stake's Record Keeping Status Report in the Membership Audit column for the submission dates for last year, and the "problems found" for each ward for an estimation of how well it went last year. On time submissions with 0 problems could mean everything is great, or very little care was made to complete an audit. (if the audit was unattended, you won't know which one it is....)

kisaac wrote:If you have ever sat in on a financial audit, imagine a ward clerk auditing his own financial clerk.

In a financial audit, the auditor is making independent assessments. For example, he inspects a random weekly packet to see if it contains the documents it ought to contain. This does not seem analogous to what goes on in a membership audit, where the stake clerk is essentially just walking the ward clerk through answering the questions himself. For example, the ward clerk looks over the list of allegedly single members and says whether they really are single. The stake clerk doesn't randomly telephone someone on the list and ask them if they really are single. What does the presence of the stake clerk really add to this process?

The annual membership audit is a wonderful training opportunity. Either the stake clerk or his assistant for membership has the opportunity to visit with each ward clerk and membership clerk, and walk them through the audit. He can also use this time to walk them through LCR to ensure they are familiar with all the reports and features available to them.
For example, I had the ward membership clerk sit at the computer while the ward clerk and I watched. I learned that many membership clerks receive very little training and experience, and end up doing nothing. Several membership clerks expressed wide-eyed amazement at all the features available to them.

chrisgrant wrote:

kisaac wrote:If you have ever sat in on a financial audit, imagine a ward clerk auditing his own financial clerk.

In a financial audit, the auditor is making independent assessments. For example, he inspects a random weekly packet to see if it contains the documents it ought to contain. This does not seem analogous to what goes on in a membership audit, where the stake clerk is essentially just walking the ward clerk through answering the questions himself.

Not a direct correlation, sure. So, lets change YOUR phrase "Making independent assessments" to "allowing the clerk to account for his stewardship to his leaders." Would that also be accurate of both the financial and membership audit?

The level of importance that our leaders apply, both to a financial audit and a membership audit, is the same level the bishop and ward clerk will apply. Having your stake president require an accounting from each ward bishop and clerk through his stake clerks will raise the level of importance of your membership audit, and the quality of your records will increase. After all, would a temple recommend interview be the same if we just "checked some boxes" on an online form?

Lets look at your question:

chrisgrant wrote:For example, the ward clerk looks over the list of allegedly single members and says whether they really are single.

What would you say about all the names in your ward? When I was a clerk, I had some I suspected where married, but had no date to enter, and several we just didn't know. When somebody doesn't show up at church, it is a little tough to bring up the subject of marriage. If someone was auditing me, I could ask about them...it's not like I'm going to lie just to be over with it. The stake clerks had an opportunity to both train and encourage me. If no stake clerk cared to come ask, I guess I'd do it just like the clerk before me did...
Which would be like the ward clerk auditing his finance clerk; hence, my comment.

Do I think we can vastly improve the membership audit process? Absolutely! Here is a post including a training template I made for a clerk training on the Membership Audit:

drepouille wrote:Several membership clerks expressed wide-eyed amazement at all the features available to them.

Clerk training starts from the top down!

momasboy wrote:which is contrary to what I was told by our previous stake clerk. I'm just trying to understand my role, any help would be appreciated.

Others have already covered it well, but my situation was that I was a ward clerk in the same stake I was called to be the stake clerk for, so I knew first hand that the previous stake clerk's information wasn't going to be much use to me (I learned quickly he had NO answers for me as a clerk, he had never served as a ward clerk before being the stake clerk) - so I had no ill-conceptions about things I was told.

I found a reference once on end-of-year report that had a coversheet on it that referenced a stake-clerk's handbook... boy that would've been nice to have.

In the church, most of us never receive training, don't do enough to understand our full role, and nobody else knows our calling well enough to provide help.

I've always thought it would be good to have a ward calling called 'Ward Smarty-pants' or something like that... the guy that knew everything.

johnshaw wrote:I found a reference once on end-of-year report that had a coversheet on it that referenced a stake-clerk's handbook... boy that would've been nice to have.

I've seen every stake clerk's handbook published since 1974. I found them almost as helpful as the current Handbook 1, Chapters 13 and 14.

johnshaw wrote:I've always thought it would be good to have a ward calling called 'Ward Smarty-pants' or something like that... the guy that knew everything.

In most wards, that's the fellow who just got released.

I am a Stake Clerk and just finished all of our units' membership audits. What I did, based on my interpretation of the instructions. I setup an appointment of at least an hour with the Ward Clerk and Bishop. If either of them were not available, then an assistant Clerk or bishopric counselor needed to be present. When we conducted the audit, the clerk sat at the computer with the Bishop and I looking over his shoulder. I had the Clerk read the instructions out loud so everyone knew what the instructions were. Just about every Clerk did not have the "inside information" to know who was married, baptised, or ordained so the Bishop would read down the lists and say, "Check them." After the process was done, I had them fill out the form with who was going to complete what and sign the form. I took a copy of the form for the Stake and left a copy, or two, with them to work off of. We also found that most of the items came from the step listing missing parents, birthplaces, etc. We printed that page since the missing information was not listed on the Audit Exception Report.

After just about each audit, I then spent as much as an hour walking the Clerk through LCR and explaining several of the new features. I think it was a good experience for all involved!

crawil wrote:with the Ward Clerk and Bishop

This was the first year I performed membership audits with both the clerk and the bishop of each ward. It went so much more smoothly having the bishop there – first of all, it helped everyone understand the importance of keeping accurate records; and second, there were many cases where the bishop knew more about the members than the clerk (ordinations, marriages, etc.).

It's easy to forget that the clerk is responsible for recordkeeping in the ward under the direction of the bishop. Clerks often have more experience with the mechanics of recordkeeping, but they aren't necessarily the experts on the status and circumstances of ward members.

sbradshaw wrote: It's easy to forget that the clerk is responsible for recordkeeping in the ward under the direction of the bishop. Clerks often have more experience with the mechanics of recordkeeping, but they aren't necessarily the experts on the status and circumstances of ward members.

I couldn't agree more, as a Ward Clerk, I've forgotten the number of times I've found out about an Ordinance etc., by chance, sometimes months after the event!

I have put procedures in place, but if these aren't followed for whatever reason, then these events can slip through the cracks. I've found that most of these omissions occur when I'm away for a few Sundays.

This is just an observation and is in no way a criticism of my Bishopric as they are always under pressure to do their callings, for the betterment of the membership.

The November 4, 2015, release notes for Release 3.1 of LCR say: "Ward clerks can now conduct membership audits using LCR." (Emphasis added.)