Though, the assistant clerks are just that – assistants – whether membership, financial, or general. The ward clerk has primary stewardship for both membership and finance.eblood66 wrote:(perhaps the Stake President is concerned that with 2 clerks neither one has primary stewardship over the finance records).
But does "Ward assistant clerk" still have finance rights? And how many of them can you have?chrisgrant wrote:According to an email we received this week, beginning on March 2, 2020, each ward will be limited to one "Ward Assistant Clerk--Finance".
Unless I'm missing something, that's always been the case. Or, are you saying a unit can only have one of each?chriswoodut wrote:We received the letter as well and it was only being sent to those wards exceeding the recommended #. The letter said the following assistants are allowed:
- Ward assistant clerk
- Ward assistant clerk—membership
- Ward assistant clerk—finance
- Stake assistant clerk
- Stake assistant clerk—membership
- Stake assistant clerk—finance
The letter said you can only have one of each. The email said if more than 1 person is assigned to that position come March 2, all will be released from that position and it will need to be fixed by the ward clerk so that only one has that calling. I assume Ward Assistant Clerk has finance rights -- the letter didn't say anything about that changing.russellhltn wrote:But does "Ward assistant clerk" still have finance rights? And how many of them can you have?chrisgrant wrote:According to an email we received this week, beginning on March 2, 2020, each ward will be limited to one "Ward Assistant Clerk--Finance".
Unless I'm missing something, that's always been the case. Or, are you saying a unit can only have one of each?chriswoodut wrote:We received the letter as well and it was only being sent to those wards exceeding the recommended #. The letter said the following assistants are allowed:
- Ward assistant clerk
- Ward assistant clerk—membership
- Ward assistant clerk—finance
- Stake assistant clerk
- Stake assistant clerk—membership
- Stake assistant clerk—finance
Thanks for that clarification.chriswoodut wrote:The letter said you can only have one of each.
Our usage of the clerk calling was in response to instructions from our mission president and our area authority Seventy. We just do what we're told.russellhltn wrote: I've since found out this change is aimed at those units that used the clerk calling to grant access to information.
The mission president is aware of this change.chrisgrant wrote:Our usage of the clerk calling was in response to instructions from our mission president and our area authority Seventy. We just do what we're told.
My point is that low-level functionaries should not be implicitly criticized for their actions, when their actions were at the behest of their priesthood leaders. "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?"scgallafent wrote:The mission president is aware of this change.chrisgrant wrote:Our usage of the clerk calling was in response to instructions from our mission president and our area authority Seventy. We just do what we're told.
Point noted. However, at the end of the day, it still went against what the even higher leadership wanted.chrisgrant wrote:My point is that low-level functionaries should not be implicitly criticized for their actions, when their actions were at the behest of their priesthood leaders.
So, should we have gone over the head of the Area Authority Seventy and the Mission President to get their instructions countermanded?russellhltn wrote:Point noted. However, at the end of the day, it still went against what the even higher leadership wanted.chrisgrant wrote:My point is that low-level functionaries should not be implicitly criticized for their actions, when their actions were at the behest of their priesthood leaders.
Are you saying the mission president can do no wrong?chrisgrant wrote:So, should we have gone over the head of the Area Authority Seventy and the Mission President to get their instructions countermanded?
I'm not sure anyone is blaming anyone. They simply said in the past access was granted to get to information the callings didn't have but likely needed. Now, those callings will get access under their own calling to the data they need and this work-around is no longer needed.chrisgrant wrote:So, should we have gone over the head of the Area Authority Seventy and the Mission President to get their instructions countermanded?russellhltn wrote:Point noted. However, at the end of the day, it still went against what the even higher leadership wanted.chrisgrant wrote:My point is that low-level functionaries should not be implicitly criticized for their actions, when their actions were at the behest of their priesthood leaders.
No. I'm asking what the protocol is for going over the head of our regional file leaders. I can't find where that's discussed in the General Handbook.russellhltn wrote:Are you saying the mission president can do no wrong?chrisgrant wrote:So, should we have gone over the head of the Area Authority Seventy and the Mission President to get their instructions countermanded?
How are you communicating your finger-pointing to the Area Authority Seventy and the Mission President? Are they monitoring this forum?russellhltn wrote:I'm not pointing fingers at the ones who complied, but the ones that wanted it done.
Hopefully. However, it also seems to be the case that some people have a different understanding of their calling than what the authors of the Handbook had in mind.chriswoodut wrote:Now, those callings will get access under their own calling to the data they need and this work-around is no longer needed.
And my point was not to criticize your actions, so I apologize if you took it as a criticism.chrisgrant wrote:My point is that low-level functionaries should not be implicitly criticized for their actions, when their actions were at the behest of their priesthood leaders. "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?"scgallafent wrote:The mission president is aware of this change.chrisgrant wrote:Our usage of the clerk calling was in response to instructions from our mission president and our area authority Seventy. We just do what we're told.
An assistant clerk can talk to the clerk. Ward/ward assistant clerks can talk to the stake clerk who is responsible for their training (and has the ear of the stake president). As a last resort, they can talk to support. I doubt of support would do much, but it does make them aware and if it's really bad, they may get someone involved. They might also have some tips on how to respectfully "push back" on the request.chrisgrant wrote:I'm asking what the protocol is for going over the head of our regional file leaders. I can't find where that's discussed in the General Handbook.
In that regard.....Does the Church have the ability to detect or prevent login sharing? I predict that will become a greater temptation now...russellhltn wrote:Thanks for that clarification.chriswoodut wrote:The letter said you can only have one of each.
I've since found out this change is aimed at those units that used the clerk calling to grant access to information.
On MLS or LCR?klricks wrote:In that regard.....Does the Church have the ability to detect or prevent login sharing? I predict that will become a greater temptation now...