Training Matrix

A letter from the Presiding Bishopric dated 20 July 2005 stated: "A Church record-keeping training course is now available and can be accessed in the 'Serving in the Church' area of www.lds.org. Priesthood leaders, clerks, and stake auditors should review the lessons that apply to their callings."


Both the financial and membership audits have a requirement that leaders and clerks "have reviewed the applicable training lessons." Whenever we conduct such audits in our stake, this is one of the hardest questions to answer accurately because:

1. The question needs to be answered by several people who are not present at the audit
2. It's not clear to anyone what the "applicable" lessons are
3. There is no record of who took any lessons

Because of these problems, auditors usually get a vague answer such as "I'm pretty sure everyone has taken the training" or "Hmm. I don't know. You'll have to ask the other clerks." In many cases, it's clear that clerks and leaders aren't sure where to even find the training. (It's on lds.org under Serving in the Church > Melchizedek Priesthood, or it is accessible on administrative computers through MLS.)

To help resolve some of these issues, I am preparing a training matrix for my stake to use at both the ward and stake level. It lists all the training lessons, and for each lesson lists:

1. The date the lesson was last updated
2. The approximate time to complete the lesson
3. Each calling that the lesson applies to (both required lessons and optional lessons that could be helpful)

I plan to use the matrix as the basis for a training log that wards and the stake can fill out listing each person who should take lessons (by name and by calling), the lessons they should take, and the date the training was completed. Armed with this record, it should be simple for an auditor to quickly scan the list and see if the required training has actually been completed.

I would appreciate any feedback regarding this idea, and the particular matrix (which I have attached to this post). In particular, do the required and optional lessons for each calling look correct?

Alan_Brown wrote:Armed with this record, it should be simple for an auditor to quickly scan the list and see if the required training has actually been completed.


I would appreciate any feedback regarding this idea, and the particular matrix (which I have attached to this post). In particular, do the required and optional lessons for each calling look correct?

I really like the idea and the document. I have 8 of 10 units that fall into this audit flag in our stake, and a document like this will help.

I would suggest that the Ward and Stake Clerks are required to take all of the modules. Since they are the ones who train others and help others, they should be aware of the content in the modules to urge and inspire other leaders to complete them.

I think the training matrix as a tool has merit. I plan on sending it to our audit committee chairman and an explanation as to how it can help prepare bishoprics and clerks in meeting their calling assignments. I think we can reduce our audit exceptions dramatically by using the matrix to ensure members are trained.

Now if we could only solve the issue of knowing when someone new has been called to a position requiring training...

Excellent! A few comments:

If you could some how clarify the "time" label. I figured it out as "time in minutes" but others may not understand that.

Knowing which ones are available on the ward computer would be helpful.

A little more direction how to use the second sheet would be good. It took me a bit to figure out the best method - copy and paste the first sheet and then change the positions to the names of the people occupying it and then replace the "R" and "O"s with dates as they were done. Just doing simple logging would require too much flipping back and forth to compare the sheets.

As a thought, maybe a better approach would be to color code the squares (I think colors "stick" even when changing the text) and add a column for "name". That way it only takes one sheet to keep track. However that would work only if the sheet was kept electronically rather than printed out and done manually.

I didn't look over the requirements and positions extensively, but it looks good. I didn't know there was a stake Membership clerk. Should there be a listing for the STS? Maybe require the introduction and optionally list some of the high level views of how things work?

RussellHltn wrote:A little more direction how to use the second sheet would be good. It took me a bit to figure out the best method - copy and paste the first sheet and then change the positions to the names of the people occupying it and then replace the "R" and "O"s with dates as they were done. Just doing simple logging would require too much flipping back and forth to compare the sheets.

As a thought, maybe a better approach would be to color code the squares (I think colors "stick" even when changing the text) and add a column for "name". That way it only takes one sheet to keep track. However that would work only if the sheet was kept electronically rather than printed out and done manually.

Attached is a revised copy with your suggested changes. on the color coding and the 2nd sheet example. I added a "D" for done. The cells will turn Green when you put "D".

RussellHltn wrote:If you could some how clarify the "time" label. I figured it out as "time in minutes" but others may not understand that.

That's easily fixed -- perhaps "Course Length (minutes)".

RussellHltn wrote:Knowing which ones are available on the ward computer would be helpful.

They should all be available on the ward computer, so I don't see any reason to make this distinction.

RussellHltn wrote:A little more direction how to use the second sheet would be good. It took me a bit to figure out the best method - copy and paste the first sheet and then change the positions to the names of the people occupying it and then replace the "R" and "O"s with dates as they were done. Just doing simple logging would require too much flipping back and forth to compare the sheets.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear, but this is a work in progress. I didin't do anything on the second sheet except jot down a note or two as to what I intended to do. My plan was to have a different format that would list specific people. The matrix was to be a static master list, but the training log would list specific names and dates. But I appreciate the suggestions -- I still am not sure what would work best there. In any case, my plan was to have it be self-contained, so no flipping back and forth would be necessary.

RussellHltn wrote:I didn't look over the requirements and positions extensively, but it looks good. I didn't know there was a stake Membership clerk. Should there be a listing for the STS? Maybe require the introduction and optionally list some of the high level views of how things work?

There's no ward membership clerk, either. There's only a ward clerk and zero or more assistant clerks. The fact is that wards and stakes have a lot of flexibility in organizing the clerk work. This would need to be customized for each ward and stake.

FYI, in our stake one of the assistant clerks has responsibility for membership-related issues, including tracking MP ordinations and callings. That can be a pretty big job all by itself (but he does a lot more than just that).

I didn't include the STS because there's not really any training related to that calling at this point (except I suppose the general Introduction to MLS, but that applies to every assistant clerk).

jdlessley wrote:Now if we could only solve the issue of knowing when someone new has been called to a position requiring training...

Practically every such calling is a stake calling, so it doesn't seem like it should be that hard for the stake to know when such callings occur.

opee wrote:Attached is a revised copy with your suggested changes. on the color coding and the 2nd sheet example. I added a "D" for done. The cells will turn Green when you put "D".

Neat. Can you create a "Name" field and have it reset the requirements when the name changes?

Alan_Brown wrote:They should all be available on the ward computer, so I don't see any reason to make this distinction.

There are some differences, isn't there? Or was it just last update date?

Alan_Brown wrote:There's no ward membership clerk, either. There's only a ward clerk and zero or more assistant clerks. The fact is that wards and stakes have a lot of flexibility in organizing the clerk work. This would need to be customized for each ward and stake.

I checked LUWS and it shows "Assistant Ward Clerk (membership)", "Assistant Ward Clerk (finance)" and "Assistant Stake Clerk (finance)" as part of it's built-in callings. MLS adds "Assistant Stake Clerk (membership)" to the list. So I guess your list isn't too far off the standard.

Perhaps it should be indicated these are roles and there may not be a one-to-one mapping to the callings actually extended. My concern is that someone may take the chart as gospel and decide they have to call someone to those positions. All roles should be covered.

Alan_Brown wrote:I didn't include the STS because there's not really any training related to that calling at this point (except I suppose the general Introduction to MLS, but that applies to every assistant clerk).

I think I'd assign him to read the policies for Administrative and FHC computers. (Two separate documents.)

Alan_Brown wrote:Practically every such calling is a stake calling, so it doesn't seem like it should be that hard for the stake to know when such callings occur.

Sorry for the interjection in my previous post. But yes, that is true. And as ludicrous as it may sound in my stake certain individuals may know but those who must do the training do not. This has been an ongoing issue that has been everpresent even before I moved into the stake. This is just a local issue I'm sure.

RussellHltn wrote:

Alan_Brown wrote:They should all be available on the ward computer, so I don't see any reason to make this distinction.

There are some differences, isn't there? Or was it just last update date?

There have been no new lessons added since the last download was created. More than half the lessons have been updated, but that doesn't change the matrix. In my experience very few people (well under 10%) ever take the courses at the administrative computer.

RussellHltn wrote:

Alan_Brown wrote:I didn't include the STS because there's not really any training related to that calling at this point (except I suppose the general Introduction to MLS, but that applies to every assistant clerk).

I think I'd assign him to read the policies for Administrative and FHC computers. (Two separate documents.)

I purposely restricted the scope of the matrix to the lessons available at lds.org under Serving in the Church. I did this for two reasons:

1. The financial and membership audits only refer to these lessons, and nothing else, and my purpose was to assist wards to complete the training required by audits, and to help the auditors in assessing this completion.
2. As soon as you broaden the scope to include anything else, it quickly becomes unwieldy. The matrix could include reading Handbook pages, materials on clerk.lds.org, other places on lds.org, documents specific to the ward or stake, the LDSClerks wiki, etc., etc., etc.

While these resources might be useful, and some of them might be incorporated by specific wards and stakes into their customized matrix, I couldn't see any reasonable boundary other than the one I chose.

Personally, I think that Alan has come up with a great idea.
Thanks Alan. I'm going to discuss this with the Stake Clerk - who's new:rolleyes:

I have updated the training matrix with the following changes:

1. I updated the "Last Updated" dates. Sometime in December since I last looked at the training page on lds.org, several more training lessons have been revised. Now every single lesson was last updated in 2008, except for the tiny welcome message from Bishop Burton.
2. There are now three worksheets -- a master matrix, a ward training log, and a stake training log. The master matrix is a permanent list (in case one of the logs gets messed up during editing). The actual training log only applies to a specific unit, so it makes no sense to have ward and stake together for the log.
3. I incorporated opee's excellent suggestion for color coding the logs when a lesson has been completed.
4. In the training logs, I made the columns wider so that there is room for a month/year to be entered. Not only does give a better record of completion, it lets me use a different color code for a lesson that has been updated since it was completed.
5. I added instructions.
6. Note that I made a couple of changes that are specific to my stake -- the first counselor in the stake presidency is Audit Committee Chairman, so he has required Audit Committee training, but does not require the Processing Weekly Donations lesson, since he is prohibited from handling donations.

Thanks to all for the helpful suggestions. Clearly this will require some customization for specific wards and stakes, but hopefully it will be a good start.

In his discussion on using a training matrix to track the clerks and bishopric on who has watched the training lessons, Alan_Brown said,

(It's on lds.org under Serving in the Church > Melchizedek Priesthood, or it is accessible on administrative computers through MLS.)

This is true. However, the English lessons have all been recently updated on lds.org under Serving in the Church > Melchizedek Priesthood. They have not been updated on the local ward computer as yet. If you speak English, I would recommend using the lessons on lds.org until further notice.

Alan_Brown wrote:There have been no new lessons added since the last download was created. More than half the lessons have been updated, but that doesn't change the matrix. In my experience very few people (well under 10%) ever take the courses at the administrative computer.

Actually, since I first wrote this, the rest of the lessons have been updated as well. So on lds.org, all the lessons (except for Bishop Burton's introductory message) have been updated sometime in 2008. As smithgw pointed out, the download is now more out of date than ever, so everyone should stick with the lds.org versions for now.

I have sent a couple of messages requesting an update of the download, which was originally supposed to be done in the summer of 2008, but I guess there are higher priorities....

Does anyone know of significant differences between any of the old and new lessons? I understand that from time to time we should review the lessons pertaining to our own stewardship (per Alan's matrix), but the urgency of taking the time to go through them again might be better determined if we knew there was more than just a sprucing up of some of the slides.

Mikerowaved wrote:Does anyone know of significant differences between any of the old and new lessons? I understand that from time to time we should review the lessons pertaining to our own stewardship (per Alan's matrix), but the urgency of taking the time to go through them again might be better determined if we knew there was more than just a sprucing up of some of the slides.

I don't know of all the specifics. I do know that one major topic in the old versions of several of the financial lessons was emphasizing that changes to check categories, voided checks, canceled or adjusted donations, etc. had to be communicated to the Administration Office. That is no longer needed since MLS now (as of MLS 2.7, I believe) will transmit such adjustments automatically to the administration office.

As I have reviewed several of the lessons this month, I don't notice any significant chunks of new content; rather, it seems to be cleanup such as the issue I mentioned above. Most of the lessons now give a date and those that are related to MLS say something like "Revised 2008. References MLS version 2.8". It's helpful that they now mention what MLS version they correspond to. The lessons all seem to reference MLS 2.8, and have not been updated for MLS 2.9, but most of the changes in MLS 2.9 have no effect on current training lessons anyway.

So I don't know that you're missing anything if you don't retake the lessons. The big advantage of the update is that new clerks taking the training won't be confused by obsolete instructions. But in any case, it is good to repeat the lessons. As Bishop Burton counseled,

It is our desire that all clerks, auditors, stake audit committee members, bishoprics, and stake presidencies in the Church have access to this training and that they take each lesson that applies to their calling. Clerks and auditors should take the training when they are newly called and then again after they have been serving for a period of time.