Send A Message application and privacy settings

Hi,

I became aware of a potentially significant pitfall with the current version of the "Send A Message" application.

If a member has chosen to set his/her contact information to "Private - Leadership Only," that member will still be included in the distribution list generated by "Send A Message" as well as the list generated using Directory -> Ward Organizations -> e-mail all (at least if a leader is logged in, not sure if the generated list is different for a non-leader).

This can lead to unexpected surprises - as in my recent interaction with a member who had already set his e-mail to "Private" and was upset about receiving information from the ward. Currently, one can avoid e-mailing these members only by keeping a list of private e-mails and manually removing those members from the recipient list or by deleting their e-mail addresses from the system altogether.

This has already been reported via the "Feedback" system, but I am posting it here just to make clerks/leaders aware. Hopefully in the future we might get an option to include/exclude "Private" addresses or have them excluded unless added manually. It's useful to have those e-mails in the directory for leadership contact purposes, but not desirable to have bulk e-mails going out to individuals who don't want contact.

visick wrote:If a member has chosen to set his/her contact information to "Private - Leadership Only," that member will still be included in the distribution list generated by "Send A Message" as well as the list generated using Directory -> Ward Organizations -> e-mail all (at least if a leader is logged in, not sure if the generated list is different for a non-leader).

I guess I don't see why that should be a surprise. If the member supplied an email address and said it was for Leadership Only, it seems quite reasonable that someone who is in the Leadership category would be able to send them an email.

And yes, it will certainly be different for a non-leader -- non-leaders don't have access to email addresses marked as Private.

There was a time when even leaders could not use the Send a Message feature to send email to members with Private or Ward privacy settings, and that was surprising. But what you are describing sounds completely reasonable, and should be considered reasonable by any member in this situation. If a member absolutely doesn't want to receive email from anyone, they should simply remove their email address from the system -- there is no reason for their email address to be recorded. The system is not set up to make a distinction based on the type of email being sent, but only based on who the sender is and their permissions relative to the privacy settings of the recipients.

We have a number of inactive/less-active members who aren't happy about receiving messages under the new messaging system. It would be helpful if the system could accommodate those members who don't want to receive any general emails sent to the entire ward but are willing to make their contact information available to ward leaders should there ever be a need to contact the member directly. Removing their email addresses from the official directory and placing them in a separate "private" directory is less than efficient.

aebrown wrote:I guess I don't see why that should be a surprise. If the member supplied an email address and said it was for Leadership Only, it seems quite reasonable that someone who is in the Leadership category would be able to send them an email.

Well, yes, of course that's true, and as it should be. But there's a difference between a leader sending that person an individual e-mail and having that person included in every bulk e-mail to "all adults" or "all members" or "all elders" or whatever.

If Joe and Sue have their contact info. set to Private, then I can always go into Directory to get it if I need to contact them. But when I send something to the whole ward, at the moment, the choices are: (1) annoy Joe and Sue with unwanted e-mail, (2) remember that Joe and Sue have private addresses and that I need to delete them from the recipient list (fine in principle, but not so good in practice for my sieve-like memory), or (3) delete Joe and Sue's e-mail addresses from the ward list altogether, which means I lose the option of e-mailing them when I want/need to.

visick wrote:But when I send something to the whole ward, at the moment, the choices are:

I agree those are not attractive choices. I see privacy settings as being different from being included in mass emails, so it would take some added functionality to address this and not modifying the mass-sending rules.

But the forum doesn't get to vote on features, so I'd suggest sending feedback inside of LCR or the Directory.

visick wrote:...when I send something to the whole ward, at the moment, the choices are: (1) annoy Joe and Sue with unwanted e-mail, (2) remember that Joe and Sue have private addresses and that I need to delete them from the recipient list (fine in principle, but not so good in practice for my sieve-like memory), or (3) delete Joe and Sue's e-mail addresses from the ward list altogether, which means I lose the option of e-mailing them when I want/need to.

Although I do understand that there can be some people who don't want broadcast emails sent to them, I think you're making an invalid assumption if you think that the only reason that people choose the "Private - Leadership only" setting is to avoid getting broadcast emails. It's entirely possible (and to my thinking, more likely) that they set their email addresses to Private only because they don't want the whole ward or stake to have access to their email address. Such people would welcome broadcast emails sent by ward leaders (which are sent BCC, thus hiding the email addresses from the general ward membership), and indeed would be disappointed if you excluded them.

You have certainly identified a use case that is not well handled by the current implementation of Send a Message, but I fear that your suggested remedy will cause as many problems as it solves. Perhaps an additional privacy setting ("Private -- no broadcast messages") would help, or even a separate setting not directly connected to the current 3-level privacy setting ("Allow broadcast messages") that would allow members with any of the privacy settings to specify whether they want to receive bulk emails.

*bump*

I am a Stake Exec Sec and it is an issue for me and other stake leaders who need to deselect individuals who do not welcome broadcast emails. Could someone please give an update on whether this is being addressed or if others have a good way of dealing with this?

I was out of country with no access to internet and another leader handled some emails while I was out. I didn't leave a list of individuals to deselect. He sent out emails and received multiple responses that his message was not welcome. Some of the responders were less active but still wanted to be associated with the church. I am hesitant to ask the local clerk to remove their info from the system- less active members may welcome email in cases where house visits and phone calls fail.

Another issue is that an individual can inform me that they do not want to be included on mass emails however other leaders do not know the individual does not want to be emailed. So the Ward Exec Secretary may send out an email and get blasted. There are other instances where this occurs also yet the member does want to receive direct contacts. I am hesitant to maintain an extensive list of members that is used as a reference for other leaders.

Thanks much

No idea how others use it. In my ward/stake, it's used very sparingly. I go months, if not years between such broadcasts as it's generally limited to last-minute changes where there's no time to announce the change over the pulpit.