Branch President wants Records moved-in, not Out-of-Unit Records

We have a struggling Branch in our stake. The Branch Clerk asked me a question I didn't have an answer for, that is:

Although the handbook reads that we need to create out of unit records for members living outside the branch boundaries, the Branch President wants the records move instead.

The President's reasoning is primarily due to home teaching. They only have a few active members who can do home teaching who reside within the branch boundaries, and out-of-Unit membership records cannot be assigned as home teachers.

I see the wisdom in the policy since I don't think out of unit members should be expected to home teach far from their homes, and they should probably have home teachers assigned to them that live nearby too. However, I also can empathize with the President's plea for more home teachers.

My question is: Can the Stake President authorize this "exception" to the policy by request of the Branch President? Or must we stick to the handbook and create out of unit records? I presume the answer is that the policy has no exceptions, and they're in the manual for a reason (which is what I told him). If that is truly the case, can we advise the Branch President that he can unofficially call the members as home teachers even though the system won't allow their out-of-unit membership record to be assigned officially, or is that discouraged as well?

-Neil L.

adoga wrote:My question is: Can the Stake President authorize this "exception" to the policy by request of the Branch President? Or must we stick to the handbook and create out of unit records?

Looking at the second paragraph of 13.6, I'd say that exceptions require the approval of the Office of the First Presidency.

adoga wrote:They only have a few active members who can do home teaching who reside within the branch boundaries, and out-of-Unit membership records cannot be assigned as home teachers.

What kind of branch is this? If it's not a singles or language branch, I think you have a case for reorganizing the boundaries.

Your alternative is to ask the stake president to consult with the area authority about how to handle this. In particular if the restrictions of HT to only in-unit members should be re-examined.

russellhltn wrote:What kind of branch is this? If it's not a singles or language branch, I think you have a case for reorganizing the boundaries.

It's a "we're located in the middle of nowhere" branch.

russellhltn wrote:Your alternative is to ask the stake president to consult with the area authority about how to handle this. In particular if the restrictions of HT to only in-unit members should be re-examined.

OK, good idea.

adoga wrote:It's a "we're located in the middle of nowhere" branch.

You might want to read section 9 of Handbook 1. If the branch no longer meets the qualifications of a branch, then I'd say things need to be redone.

I'd have to do some research, but I'm wondering what are the guidelines for calling out-of-unit leaders into a "regular" branch.

russellhltn wrote:I'd have to do some research, but I'm wondering what are the guidelines for calling out-of-unit leaders into a "regular" branch.

A branch is a very flexible organization and should be able to function as a branch without importing out-of-unit leaders or members. After approvals in the handbook, a stake president calls a branch president and helps him succeed.

I know of a stake president who called a member not living in the branch to serve as branch president after consulting with the area seventy. The call was allowed and the out-of-unit branch president served long enough to train one of his counselors to become the new branch president. The counsel from the area seventy was that the stake president may consider importing a branch president, but if he needed to import anyone else, he should first consider the future of the branch itself. Remember that this is not in the Handbook. Your stake president would need to counsel with his priesthood leader on a matter such as this.

The best source of information for running a branch is the Branch Guidebook. Although it is written for branches in missions, the same principles apply to a branch in a stake.

I believe if the stake president and the branch president read it and follow it, they will have every chance of helping the branch to succeed. They are the only two who will be able to make it work.

Think simple. Mosiah 4:27. Doctrine and Covenants 10:4.

So, the consensus is that out of unit records are required?

adoga wrote:So, the consensus is that out of unit records are required?

That's not what I said. To answer your specific question, if the stake is asking members who live outside the branch boundaries to attend and be members of the branch, the stake president first should obtain the permission of the First Presidency, and then the records should be moved into the branch.

Take a step back and read my post again. Then let your branch president and stake president, as the priesthood leaders involved, work out the best solution. If the stake president needs to consult with his area seventy, he will.

A branch can function perfectly well with two families. There is a whole lot more going on here than the membership record issue. It would be wise for the stake president to sort that out with the branch president first.

Thank you

russellhltn wrote:I'd have to do some research, but I'm wondering what are the guidelines for calling out-of-unit leaders into a "regular" branch.

I've hunted high and low, including in Handbook 2: 17 and even Basic Unit Program Guidebook. In them, one sees a pattern of reducing the program to fit the available membership. Nothing about calling outside help. HT can be temporarily reduced according to Handbook 2: 7.4.3.

Now, I can see situations where wards and branches would have outside help. Handbook 1: 9.1.6 and 9.1.7 outline the leadership positions in a singles unit that need to be filled by married members - clearly from outside the unit. In the case of language wards, the stakes are going to want leaders that are bi-lingual so as to be able to work with them. So I can see the calling being extended to someone who isn't currently in the language ward, but does live within the ward's boundaries. In that case, there probably isn't a problem in transferring the records to the language word.

But I see no such thing for a regular ward or branch.

We used to have a problem unit. The North area had established families and stable. The South area was a "tourist zone". Anyone living there was only there long enough to get established and was off to somewhere else. The two units were divided in a way that made sense geographically. The solution turned out to be to draw dividing lines north to south. So two units had half of the stable area and half of the tourist area. It did mean splitting up areas that made sense from a physical standpoint, but the result was two strong wards where we used to have a weak one.

Thank You