Child's name missing from Primary rolls.

We are in the process of printing new Primary rolls from the LCR. We have one child (so far) that shows up in the class list but disappears when sent to print. She is one of three children who have been put into a class that is not consistent with their age (because of disabilities, etc.). I'm not sure if that detail is relevant or not given that the other two appear on the print lists just fine. Any ideas?

Is the child over the age of 8? I'm not sure what happens to a unbaptized child over the age of 8 - they might not be counted as members.

She has been baptized, is a life-long member of our ward, and both parents are married and belong to our ward. I just double-checked and she is listed as baptized. She shows when I want to print a class list, but not when I print the roll.

I even tried moving her into a different class and then moving her back - still not showing.

Out of curiosity, try printing the roll for the class that is age appropriate for her.

Another question - how soon is her birthday? I think the rolls do some "look ahead" to see what should be happening during that time-span. For example, I think it will add the names of children who should be coming in during that time.

She doesn't show on the printed copy either. Her birthday was in January.

Just to throw a wrench in the whole issue, I've also discovered two different girls not showing on the Activity Day list (not just the roll this time).

When MLS or LCR isn't doing something, it's best to pull the Handbook and make sure what you're doing is allowed. Looking at Handbook 2: 11, ignoring the 12 year-olds, I'm not seeing any exception to the age grouping. Not even in 11.8.6 Children Who Have Special Needs.

At this point, I suspect what you're trying to do simply isn't supported. Moving children is probably there for splitting classes and dealing with the 12 year olds - not putting them in a different age group.

LCR is rigorous in following the handbook. More so than MLS was.

The handbook states that the children are "normally" grouped by age (11.4.3). Our feeling was that the wording allowed for needed exceptions. The other two children who are also not in their normal age group show up just fine. There is a notation next to those two names that states: "* out of default class assignment." The gal who is missing doesn't show that notation for some reason.

I just moved her out of her current class into the one she should be in per her age. Once in that class, she shows the notation *out of default class assignment (even though technically that is where she should be).

wendyhickman wrote:The handbook states that the children are "normally" grouped by age (11.4.3). Our feeling was that the wording allowed for needed exceptions.

It's possible, but in writing the specs, the Priesthood Department may have handed down something more concrete in the way of business rules. We'll have to see.

wendyhickman wrote:There is a notation next to those two names that states: "* out of default class assignment." The gal who is missing doesn't show that notation for some reason.

Interesting. Seems like a clue of some kind.

Reread your request for printing. Her name does print with her actual age-group.

How far out of her age group is it? It might support "a little" but not "a lot".

Her birthday is January 1, 2007. Because the girls in her school grade fell into the 2006 year (and she was only one day off), she received permission to move with that group of children. I suspect something was done to her record (probably when she was a Sunbeam) to accommodate moving her (with this alternate group) in the old MLS. I'm going to have the clerk inspect her record and see if he can spot an anomaly that would have translated incorrectly in this new system.

It sounds like something isn't working right.

wendyhickman, please submit the details using the feedback form in LCR. That will get it in the queue so that someone can take a look at it.

wendyhickman wrote:Her birthday is January 1, 2007.

Oh, that sounds like a classic "the difference between > and =>" when coding. It can make for some interesting things.