lajackson wrote:Maybe I am missing something. Is this assistant ward clerk just setting up interview appointments without any coordination with the bishopric to see who actually needs them?
And if he is not talking with the bishopric, even if the member just renewed it last Sunday, the clerk is still going to call them to set up an appointment and get the "we just did it" because the member will not have seen the stake presidency yet.
I think there is some confusion because ordinarily the executive secretary would set up such appointments (although as I understand it, since there can be no assistant executive secretary, if he needs help in his duties an assistant ward clerk can be assigned).
No matter who is assigned, he needs to see the most recent information MLS has about the status. Yes, there is an unrecorded gap inherent in MLS between the recorded expiration and the time the stake records a renewal after the stake interview. But that gap is just inherent in the process. It obtains in desktop MLS, as well as the online system. The offline coordination you mention has to occur no matter who does the job -- assistant clerk or executive secretary.
The poster's particular problem is that in desktop MLS, bishops have the flexibility to assign privileges according to local needs. Thus, because he has been assigned to assist the executive secretary in this task, this assistant clerk has been given appropriate privileges in desktop MLS. But in the online system this flexibility has not been given to local priesthood leaders. Privileges are hard-wired to callings and cannot be changed by bishops or their adminstrators. This lack of flexibility for local priesthood leaders is not limited to the temple-recommend issue.