Two Stakes, 3 wards, 1 Building

Our ward recently moved into another building that is in another stake. . . .

Last question, and it may not be appropriate for this forum but the same issue [from the Calendar subforum] arises when being able to view leadership contact information for the other two wards. Is it possible to have this shown as well?

danielplaizier wrote:Our ward recently moved into another building that is in another stake. . . .

Last question, and it may not be appropriate for this forum but the same issue [from the Calendar subforum] arises when being able to view leadership contact information for the other two wards. Is it possible to have this shown as well?

You will not see any out of stake Directory or leadership information, unless you are entered as an out of unit member in the other stake and given a calling there. Same for them. They will not see you unless you make one of them an out of unit member and give them a calling.

However, Bishoprics and Stake Presidencies have access to the CDOL which will provide some leadership information about the other stake.

We have the same problem. There are four buildings that wards in our Stake attend, and only two of them are "in our stake". We have constant communication issues with the other stakes, especially trying to find out who the building schedulers are.

What are the implications of adding the building schedulers as "out-of-unit" members?

dotson98 wrote:What are the implications of adding the building schedulers as "out-of-unit" members?

I'm not sure what you mean by "building scheduler". The calendar system only permits building schedulers to be set by the agent stake for the building. I'm not sure as it can be assigned to a out of unit member, as it's not handled as a calling, but selected directly within the app.

I think you can see who is assigned as the building scheduler in the calendar app. If you can see the building in the "facility" list on the main page, if you click on it, you should see who is the building scheduler, their email and phone number.

Most people bypass the calendar for scheduling and make their arrangements directly with the person who is called as the "Building Scheduler". As for the other stakes' building schedulers showing, they either don't have anyone set, or it just doesn't show their names.

dotson98 wrote:Most people bypass the calendar for scheduling and make their arrangements directly with the person who is called as the "Building Scheduler".

That may block off use of the building, but that doesn't place the event on the calendar where members can see it. Individual units can use that method, but the calendar system doesn't really support doing that on a multi-unit basis since no one can add events to a unit they don't belong to.

dotson98 wrote:As for the other stakes' building schedulers showing, they either don't have anyone set, or it just doesn't show their names.

If they're using the calendar system for scheduling, then they may not need one. In the current calendar system, the building scheduler has more of a "conflict resolution" role than a active part of the scheduling. The day-to-day scheduling has been replaced by the computer. If the other stake is actively using the calendar, you can adopt the same method of scheduling and you'd only need to communicate to the other stake when there is a conflict.

As for having the other stake call building schedulers to deal with conflicts, have your stake president talk with their stake president. Discuss with area authority as needed. But even if that does come to pass, they may not want you calling them to schedule events - just for dealing with conflicts. Which means someone in your stake will have to be doing the scheduling. Perhaps as a "calendar coordinator".

I think that the calendar use varies, and some building schedulers may put the event on the calendar themselves.

I would love to have them adopt the calendar fully, but old habits die hard. So, as I can't force the use of the calendar, then the next best thing is to get the Scheduler to show up in the directory / LDS Tools. That's why I'm asking about adding them as an Out-Of-Unit member. I don't want to do that if it messes with their current membership.

If you just need someone to schedule the building, then I'd suggest calling a "calendar coordinator" for each unit. Give them admin rights to the unit's calendar and have at it. That way, the building is scheduled and the event is where the members can see it.

I like the suggestion, but I still have to coordinate with the other stakes. This would add one more layer of communication which takes us further from self-service.

I'm still curious on the question of out-of-unit members.

dotson98 wrote:I like the suggestion, but I still have to coordinate with the other stakes.

If they're using the calendar properly, then they're scheduling the facility in the calendar. The system won't let your units book the same building/room/time combination. No coordination needed for routine stuff, just on setting up the rules and dealing with conflicts.

And if they want to self-service by scheduling in the calendar directly, they can. Just make sure to add the church facility to the event.

dotson98 wrote:I'm still curious on the question of out-of-unit members.

You'll have to ask the other stake to try. But I don't understand what that gains you over scheduling things in your own calendar. In some ways, the building scheduler is actually more limited than normal calendar editors.

Yes, a building scheduler can set restrictions (which appear to be going away), yes a building scheduler can block off use of the building (but then so does scheduling an event that uses the facility). Yes, a building scheduler can modify any existing events to make accommodations. But what they can't do is place an event on your calendar. Only your unit can place an event on that unit's calendar.

I guess what I didn't make clear is that the conflict resolution comes from the building scheduler - not the LDS Calendar. I have no idea what system they are using - I can only hope that they are using the LDS Calendar, but I just don't know. While that remains unknown, I will have to involve the building scheduler for the stake. If we could get all three stakes to agree to use this single system, it would be a huge win. I just don't know if there is the political will to go there.

dotson98 wrote:If we could get all three stakes to agree to use this single system, it would be a huge win. I just don't know if there is the political will to go there.

I think the alternatives are more hassle for everyone involved. "Distributed scheduling" can seem scary, but typically only leaders have access. One would hope that leaders know how to follow rules and play nicely.