Request Bishop contact on a membership

I have a couple members that are about to move out of our ward. They have issues that I need to pass along to their next Bishop. I don't know when they will move - it might be next week or in three months. When they do move, I don't know that it will be us that moves their record out - their new ward might first request the membership records.

I have an excellent membership clerk, and he informs me that the only time you can put a request on a membership record for the new bishop to contact the old bishop is when the record is actually moved out of the ward by the old ward. There are two problems with this:

1. If the new ward requests the membership, they'll never know that they should contact the old bishop.
2. Even if we do the move, it's possible that the membership clerk might forget out of habit.

What we really need is a way to tag a membership record this way in advance. I feel that the current process is insufficient and error prone.

I know that every bishop should always contact the old bishop with every new member move in, but that rarely happens.

Is this something that has been considered before, or can we request this as an enhancement to MLS?

You may wish to review this thread for some ideas.

RussellHltn wrote:You may wish to review this thread for some ideas.

Although that thread indeed contains a variety of helpful ideas, the key point is described concisely in the wiki article Move restriction.

bcpalmer60 wrote:I know that every bishop should always contact the old bishop with every new member move in, but that rarely happens.

I've never heard of such a policy. Although there's certainly nothing wrong with a bishop contacting the bishop in the previous ward, I don't believe that it is a requirement in any handbook or official letter. Such a requirement would be a significant burden in wards with a transient membership, such as student wards.

If that were a requirement, why would there be special procedures when a membership record is moved out to request that the new bishop contact the previous one?

Alan_Brown wrote:the key point is described concisely in the wiki article Move restriction.

Darn, I tried searching for it - no luck.

Alan_Brown wrote:I've never heard of such a policy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a policy of contacting the prior bishop prior to issuing a temple recommend if someone has been in the ward for less then a year? (I'm going by old memory here.)

That might be the Genesis of the statement.

RussellHltn wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a policy of contacting the prior bishop prior to issuing a temple recommend if someone has been in the ward for less then a year? (I'm going by old memory here.)

That might be the Genesis of the statement.

That is indeed correct (your old memory is quite good ). Of course, with two-year recommends these days, roughly half of the recommend holders who move into a ward would live in their new ward for a year before their recommend would expire, but for the other half, this would indeed be a requirement.

I suppose it's conceivable that someone took this specific occasional requirement for contacting a previous bishop and morphed it into a requirement to always do so. But although it can be interesting to speculate how people come to assume policies that aren't really policies, it's still only speculation.

Our ward does do this practice of calling previous bishops, but not in adherence to any assumed policy. It's just something that serves us quite practically as we are a fairly transient ward and request many records per month. I can imagine we often request records before the previous ward gets a chance to send them on with the flag saying we need to contact the prior bishop. So we just call anyway at our bishop's request to ensure that nothing confidential or sensitive gets lost in the transition. Of course, if there is something to pass on, we don't take down any information ourselves, but let the prior bishop know that our bishop will soon be getting in touch with him.

Alan_Brown wrote:I suppose it's conceivable that someone took this specific occasional requirement for contacting a previous bishop and morphed it into a requirement to always do so.

I remember annual (to the nearest quarter) temple recommends, making it a virtual requirement for temple recommend holders. Someone may have found it easier to make the contact sooner instead of later as the old ward's Bishopric could have changed by the time the contact was required.

All in all, it's not a bad idea - but it's only a limited requirement. But as you say, that's just speculation on how that idea came about.

RussellHltn wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a policy of contacting the prior bishop prior to issuing a temple recommend if someone has been in the ward for less then a year? (I'm going by old memory here.)

The current CHI requires that the bishop check the membership record for information that might affect a member's eligibility to receive a recommend, and also contact the former bishop if the member has not lived in his ward a year.

lajackson wrote:There used to be a specific requirement to this effect in the CHI. The current CHI only requires that the bishop check the membership record for information that might affect a member's eligibility to receive a recommend.

Actually, there still is that requirement. See page 77.

Back to the original post... I think it is a great idea. we have the same problem in our ward. It is a YSA and people come and go often and usually don't tell us before they leave, there needs to be a way to flag the record without sending it to another unit.

FletchCarp wrote:Back to the original post... I think it is a great idea. we have the same problem in our ward. It is a YSA and people come and go often and usually don't tell us before they leave, there needs to be a way to flag the record without sending it to another unit.

I assume you've read this whole thread, so you know about the option for a move restriction. So it sounds like you're saying that you'd like a way for a bishop to put a simple flag on a membership record that is not as strict as a move restriction, but invites contact from the new bishop in case the membership record gets pulled from the current ward by some other unit.

A move restriction stops the record from being moved (at least for 30 days, if the current bishop doesn't respond), but with this proposed feature, the record could indeed be pulled. The only difference is that the new bishop would receive the exact same notice to make contact with the previous bishop as he would if the record had been pushed out of the previous ward and the "contact prior bishop" flag were set at the time of the move.

I think it's a good idea.

Alan_Brown wrote:Actually, there still is that requirement. See page 77.

Ooops. My mistake. I noticed the old sentence was gone. Now there is a whole paragraph on the subject. I have correct my original post and made an appointment with my optometrist.

Alan_Brown wrote:I assume you've read this whole thread, so you know about the option for a move restriction. So it sounds like you're saying that you'd like a way for a bishop to put a simple flag on a membership record that is not as strict as a move restriction, but invites contact from the new bishop in case the membership record gets pulled from the current ward by some other unit.

A move restriction stops the record from being moved (at least for 30 days, if the current bishop doesn't respond), but with this proposed feature, the record could indeed be pulled. The only difference is that the new bishop would receive the exact same notice to make contact with the previous bishop as he would if the record had been pushed out of the previous ward and the "contact prior bishop" flag were set at the time of the move.

I think it's a good idea.

I was the person that started this whole thread. Sorry for the red herring about always needing to contact the prior bishop. The bottom line is that putting a move restriction doesn't seem to be appropriate for the situations that I'm dealing with. Thanks to all for pointing me to the Wiki and explaining the move restriction, but as I understand it, the move restriction is to be used when there is a disciplinary action in play. Without going into any specifics, here are two examples that could possibly happen:

With one family, the ex-husband is a non-member, but lives in the basement with his family, and told his wife that he was ineligible for unemployment, couldn't pay his share of the bills, so to go to the Church for assistance. It turned out that he lied to his wife, and was getting unemployment all along, but squandered all the money. No disciplinary council needed, but I need to alert the next bishop.

In another instance, a person is unworthy, but can paint a rosy picture of themself, and should not get a temple recommend, which is their desire. Again, doesn't fit the bill for a membership record hold?

I still think that it makes sense to be able flag a membership record other than putting a membership hold or flagging it as it goes out. Is it possible to have this added as an enhancement request, or do you think the membership hold fits the bill?

bcpalmer60 wrote:...as I understand it, the move restriction is to be used when there is a disciplinary action in play.

The documentation for a move restriction on the wiki does not say that a disciplinary action is the only possible use for this procedure. (And please note that this particular documentation came from a Church employee.) It says:

When a local priesthood leader needs to hold a membership record in their unit due to disciplinary action or another administrative purpose, the leader can place a move restriction on the record.

I emphasized in that quote that "another administrative purpose" is a valid use for a move restriction. So I think in the scenarios you listed, a bishop would be within policy to use a move restriction. Once the new bishop communicates with him, the prior bishop can release the hold, and the record will move as requested.

bcpalmer60 wrote:I still think that it makes sense to be able flag a membership record other than putting a membership hold or flagging it as it goes out. Is it possible to have this added as an enhancement request, or do you think the membership hold fits the bill?

I agree. Even though the move restriction seems like it would be appropriate (and probably the only existing method that accomplishes what is needed) in the listed scenarios, it would be nice to have a simpler method to flag such records.

So I have added that request to the suggestion list. It would probably be a good idea to send in your request as well directly to msrmail@ldsmail.net.

bcpalmer60 wrote:here are two examples that could possibly happen:

In both cases, especially the latter one, I'd hope that the new bishop would be contacting the prior one on general principles if either of case came to them shortly after moving in.

Still, it wouldn't hurt to "make sure".

There is a really easy way of doing this without having to place a move restriction. When another ward requests the records, the current ward gets a printout saying to which ward the member is being moved to. At that point, the former bishop can use CDOL to get the phone number of the new bishop and give him a call.
We have a very transitory ward (YSA next to a college), so we keep these printouts for a year so that it is easier to request records back into our ward after a summer break.

An issue not covered in this thread regarding move restrictions is that the ONLY one who can request or remove a move restriction is a bishop or branch president. We, as clerks, are continually counseled that we are to take responsibility for the administrative duties so our bishops can concentrate on their ministering duties (I have been told this face to face by a member of the Seventy). Then we are stifled by policies that force us to tell our bishops or stake presidents, "sorry, I can't do that for you, you have to take time out of your already over scheduled day and make the phone call to CHQ during business hours yourself".

bcpalmer60 wrote:They have issues that I need to pass along to their next Bishop. I don't know when they will move - it might be next week or in three months.

Alan_Brown wrote:Although that thread indeed contains a variety of helpful ideas, the key point is described concisely in the wiki article Move restriction.

Move Restriction: How it works...From a clerk's perspective:

On the very rare occasion we've gotten a "move restriction" on a record we've requested, its a clear indication that the two bishops need to talk. The requesting ward will get a notice that the record cannot be transferred to them, with instructions detailing the procedure and time period. With a helpful clerk doing research in CDOL, a phone call between bishops helps the process along. That may be all that is needed if the issue is not "pending action." In the case of pending action, they may need to discuss that as well, since the well-being of a soul is at stake.

As noted, the "move request" is placed by special request through MLS or the administrative office, so I'm sure they will guide bishops on when it is appropriate.