Access for Ward Assistant Clerks and Ward Executive Secretaries

Does anyone know why Ward Executive Secretaries are allowed to see temple recommend status for members but Ward Assistant Clerks aren't? The Access Table says "Temple Recommend Status" and "Endowed without Recommend" are not available to Ward Assistant Clerks but they are available for Ward Executive Secretaries.

Currently the access to the leader tools on lds.org reflect the standard callings and responsibilities found in the Handbook. Without Handbook 1 in front of me I can't give you the specific descriptions and responsibilities for each standard position. But as I recall assistant clerks have no responsibility involving member temple recommend status while a ward executive secretary assists the bishop. One of those tasks in assisting the bishop is to schedule interviews such as temple recommend interviews. He may also need to provide a list for calling considerations.

I was reviewing Handbook 1, specifically chapter 13, and I haven't found anything that says the executive secretary should have access to the temple recommend status list. (Of course, the secretary is responsible for scheduling interviews, but that announcement is in a general context.) However, ward clerks (including assistants) are responsible for providing lists of member needs, which I assume would include temple recommend needs. Does anyone know of anything specific in Handbook 1 or another policy document that explains why executive secretaries have access to temple recommend status but ward clerks (including assistants) don't?

dwsmith2 wrote:I was reviewing Handbook 1, specifically chapter 13, and I haven't found anything that says the executive secretary should have access to the temple recommend status list. (Of course, the secretary is responsible for scheduling interviews, but that announcement is in a general context.) However, ward clerks (including assistants) are responsible for providing lists of member needs, which I assume would include temple recommend needs. Does anyone know of anything specific in Handbook 1 or another policy document that explains why executive secretaries have access to temple recommend status but ward clerks (including assistants) don't?

The ward clerk does have access to the Temple Recommend Status report.

I don't know of any policy that says why assistant clerks don't have access. But recommend status is considered sensitive information. I suspect the brethren who make these decisions wanted to limit access to those callings that have a specific need in order to protect this information. The recommend list is specifically useful to the Executive Secretary in contacting people about scheduling recommend interviews. The ward clerk must have access to complete the quarterly report (and he has responsibility for all records in the ward). Assistant clerks don't have any specific responsibility in this area. Unfortunately that does limit the ability of the bishop and ward clerk to delegate certain responsibilities.

It may not be a Handbook issue, but more a data security issue. By limiting the recommend info to ward clerk, exec. sec, you limit the access to sensitive data. Some wards may have many ward assistant clerks, and most with extremely varied duties that have nothing to do with recommends. Why give all of them rights to information they should not be concerned with? Ultimately, granting ward assistant clerks Temple recommend rights would limit the people that some might comfortably call to the Ward Assistant clerk calling. If a bishop decides, he certainly could instruct one who can print the list to give it to another he delegates to make Temple Recommend calls.

The reasons given make sense. I guess our ward does things a little differently, so I need to take that into account. Thanks for your comments; they better helped me understand the reasoning behind the restrictions.

Remember, though, we are discussing rights with LDS.org rights access, which ARE NOT the same as rights granted within Member Leader Services (MLS) to similar information. The major difference is important to this topic, because many wards are set-up that way. MLS will allow a local leader to specify who has access to what information based on the login permissions granted to that individual locally, irrespective of his calling. In MLS, for example, many ward assistant clerks could be called, and some might not be granted MLS access at all, because their assigned job functions do not require it, but one may be given the right to access/update temple recommends. LDS.org grants permissions/rights to data solely on callings and access cannot (as yet) be customized by a local leader, so to err on the side of restricting access seems prudent when you consider this applies to all units around the globe.

I'm a Ward Executive Secretary, and I have access to the tools that I ought to have on LDS.org. Our ward also has an Ward Assistant Executive Secretary, but that isn't a defined role for the permissions on the site. That means that my assistant ends up not getting the access he needs online, although we can get him access in MLS.

Is there a reason that the position is not included in the privilege list and given the same or similar rights access as the Ward Executive Secretary?

danielgibby wrote:Is there a reason that the position is not included in the privilege list and given the same or similar rights access as the Ward Executive Secretary?

Sure. There is no such position in the Handbook, and thus there is no standard calling for it, and thus no access rights are granted to people with that custom calling.

Some wards have an assistant clerk (which is a calling in the Handbook) help out the executive secretary.

eblood66 wrote:Unfortunately that does limit the ability of the bishop and ward clerk to delegate certain responsibilities.

This is why I think the LDS.ORG access rights should be tailorable by Bishops just like MLS access rights are. The one-size fits all (with no possible exceptions) does not fit well. If it did, then MLS should have had a rigid set of access rights too.

I disagree I feel that what the church is doing in LDS.org to align access rights with ones calling is the right thing to do. No one should have access to any church data that don't have a need to know. By HQ setting the standard then all are equal in what can and can't be done by what calling. While this maybe diffrent (at this time) from what we are currently accustom to it won't be long until its accepted practice.

Also by limiting the rights, it will start to force Stake Presidents and Bishops to delegate responsibilities to the proper postion to accomplish those duties instead of just given it to just anyone.

We have already made the adjustments in MLS to reflect the access that is in LDS.org and just the other day we (clecks) had to redirect the Bishop when he wanted to give MR/IOS reports to for new movings to organizational leaders. He found it stange they could not have those reports as he had access to them as the HP Group Leader. We showed him the Handbook and explaned the change in LDS.ORG from HQ on restricting rights to callings. We told him we made the adjustment in MLS to reflect the change.

Then we discussed what it was he was wanting to do and found him away he could do it and stay with in guidlines. Printed him the recent move in report and that gave him everything he needed. The Bishop was happy and all is well.

My Financial Clerk has not been granted special access to LDS.org despite modifying the calling assignment numerous times in MLS. Any ideas? He would like remote access.

claytonbhess wrote:My Financial Clerk has not been granted special access to LDS.org despite modifying the calling assignment numerous times in MLS. Any ideas? He would like remote access.

Stake and ward assistant clerks for finance do not currently have access to Leader and Clerk Resources. Once the financial aspects of MLS go online financial clerks will have access to those parts of Leader and Clerk Resources pertaining to finances. This is not a programming or ICS decision. It comes from Church leadership.

claytonbhess wrote:My Financial Clerk has not been granted special access to LDS.org despite modifying the calling assignment numerous times in MLS. Any ideas? He would like remote access.

Just add him as an Assistant Ward Clerk then he will have access. I'm listed twice in MLS once a "Assistant Ward Clerk-Finance" and then as "Assistant Ward Clerk". That way I can access clerk areas on LDS.org and people know who the finance clerk is.

Gary_Miller wrote:Just add him as an Assistant Ward Clerk then he will have access.

He will have access as an assistant clerk, but as pointed out there's currently no financial functions on there. He certainly won't have the same access as the bishop. So the bishop needs to be aware of that so that he doesn't make an assignment that is beyond the access rights of the clerk.

RussellHltn wrote:He will have access as an assistant clerk, but as pointed out there's currently no financial functions on there.

Yes, I understand that. However, how many finance clerks only take care of finances 100% of the time and never have to pitch in on a membership issue.

RussellHltn wrote:He certainly won't have the same access as the bishop.

No clerk has the same access as the bishop.

RussellHltn wrote:So the bishop needs to be aware of that so that he doesn't make an assignment that is beyond the access rights of the clerk.

However, in my ward the goals of the clerks office (all the clerks) is to take as many as the administration duties away from the bishop as he is allowed to give according to the handbooks. While we each have our specialty areas and duties we each can fill in for the other when necessary. And in order for the Financial clerk to do this on LDS.ORG his calling in MLS had to be Assistant Ward Clerk, thus the reason for the duel calling in MLS.

No way am I going to tell my bishop that I can't get anything for him (when I should be able to) just because of the way a calling is entered in to a computer program when there is a legitimate work around, that still keeps us with in the church guidelines.

I am a former Ward Clerk and in our Ward it was the responsibility of the Executive Secretary to schedule interviews with those with expiring recommends. I as the Ward Clerk would check up on this occasionally but it would have been unnecessary for assistant ward clerks to have access to that information and therefore inappropriate. So the way the rights are set up worked for our ward on that item.

On the other hand I am now the EQ President and I now have access to nothing. Not birth dates, priesthood ordinations, missions, endowment status, nothing. I have to go to MLS to look things up. Additionally it would be easier for me to just correct someones phone number or email on lds.org than it is for me to have our clerks to do it, or go to the clerks office myself. I tend to to use that information more than they do, I have a greater investment in its accuracy.

I realize that making this information available from any computer opposed to a single computer is a major shift how the security of this information is maintained. I would suggest that there are ways that local leaders can be empowered delegate while safeguarding the extensive information available. Perhaps allow those in leadership positions to request additional access, and require an approval at the ward and stake level. It could be handled similar to the calendar rights access. Approvals for modifying information could happen just like the self edits of photos on the directory.

Perhaps all this is being worked on and I just need to be patient. Along with home\visiting teaching assignment viewing\modifying on lds.org and paying tithing online. Whoever is working on these projects, can I bake them some cookies to expedite the timeline

Gary_Miller wrote:We have already made the adjustments in MLS to reflect the access that is in LDS.org and just the other day we (clecks) had to redirect the Bishop when he wanted to give MR/IOS reports to for new movings to organizational leaders. He found it stange they could not have those reports as he had access to them as the HP Group Leader. We showed him the Handbook and explaned the change in LDS.ORG from HQ on restricting rights to callings. We told him we made the adjustment in MLS to reflect the change.

Then we discussed what it was he was wanting to do and found him away he could do it and stay with in guidlines. Printed him the recent move in report and that gave him everything he needed. The Bishop was happy and all is well.

I don't agree that this is the way to approach the access to information in the church or in general. The reason why clerical and secretarial positions exist in society is to perform the menial administrative tasks that are too time consuming for an administrator to perform. Technology is modifying tasks such that it can take more time for an administrator to communicate a task than for an administrator to perform a task. As this occurs our past protocols should not limit our new efficiency.

Bringing this back to the real world. The reality is the High Priest Group Leader will either way have full access to the Move in Report.

The Old Way:
[INDENT]He has to request it from the clerk, they have to stop what they are doing, print off(of course keep up the supply of ink and paper) and then go track him down and get it to him 15 minutes later than when he needed it. Oh and lets not forget the high priest group leader left the paper in the classroom, now giving access to the form to the whole ward.[/INDENT]

The Potential New Way:
[INDENT]We allow him to open the LDS tools App on his iPad (he bought of course with his own money to do church stuff on) and make an assignment for someone to go and visit the new family during the meeting. Of course he was password authenticated and the Ward Clerk is actually doing is home teaching now because he does not have to spend as long at the church anymore. [/INDENT]

marcusbennett wrote:Additionally it would be easier for me to just correct someones phone number or email on lds.org than it is for me to have our clerks to do it, or go to the clerks office myself. I tend to to use that information more than they do, I have a greater investment in its accuracy.

However, making such changes has always been the clerk's job. The problem with letting too many people edit the information is that no one is responsible for the resulting mess.

It is not up to the developers to decide how those things are done. They develop under the guidance of the priesthood department.

RussellHltn wrote:However, making such changes has always been the clerk's job. The problem with letting too many people edit the information is that no one is responsible for the resulting mess.

I agree we would have a total mess if there was no systematic approach, but if the clerk approved certain people to edit and those edits were approved it could be similar to the calendar.

I am in a singles ward, so maybe that is why I view this differently. We have people moving in and out with the wind and it is just so hard for the clerks to keep up with.

RussellHltn wrote:It is not up to the developers to decide how those things are done. They develop under the guidance of the priesthood department.

I guess my comments are to both then I have heard rumor that the reason we don't have the ability to edit or view home teaching or visiting teaching assignments online is because there was a mis-communication that somehow the actual performance of home and visiting teaching would be partially automated, which was viewed as unacceptable. Regardless of whether or not this rumor is true, I would presume it is the responsibility of the developers to come up with new solutions, understand the concerns of the brethren and make modifications to address those concerns. I presume that has happened with home and visiting teaching proposals. I would hope the same could happen here with allowing lds.org access rights modification on a local level.

marcusbennett wrote:I agree we would have a total mess if there was no systematic approach, but if the clerk approved certain people to edit and those edits were approved it could be similar to the calendar.

Since you don't have edit rights (and I think it's more likely that you'd get released before that ever happens) I'd suggest you forward the information to the membership clerk.

marcusbennett wrote:I have heard rumor that the reason we don't have the ability to edit or view home teaching or visiting teaching assignments online is because there was a mis-communication that somehow the actual performance of home and visiting teaching would be partially automated, which was viewed as unacceptable.

First I've heard if it, and I doubt if it's true. The real problem is that there are a number of things that have to happen. First of all, the back end database for HT/VT teaching routes and visit history has to be created. Then MLS has to be modified to sync the HT/VT information. Currently it doesn't have that capability. Syncing is not a trivial detail. When happens when MLS goes to sync and it finds a conflicting edit on the back end via the web? Perhaps the routes have been changed. That takes a lot of thought to figure out how every possible case should be handled.

Only then can the web tools be created. All that has to be prioritized with all the other things that the church wants their development team to do.

marcusbennett wrote:I agree we would have a total mess if there was no systematic approach, but if the clerk approved certain people to edit and those edits were approved it could be similar to the calendar.

This approach gives the clerk approval powers he has no authority to grant.

As we have come to recognize from a few years witnessing the rollout of MLS features online there is more concern with privacy and protection of confidential information. The online tools must consider the privacy limitations imposed by every country that has privacy limitations stricter than the U.S. has. Also, access rights are closely aligned with the responsibilities and authority defined in the handbooks.

We are also finding that the priesthood department reviews just about everything. This adds uncertainty to the deployment timelines as well as unexpected issues and delays.

marcusbennett wrote:I have heard rumor that the reason we don't have the ability to edit or view home teaching or visiting teaching assignments online is because there was a mis-communication that somehow the actual performance of home and visiting teaching would be partially automated, which was viewed as unacceptable.

Since the priesthood department has no responsibility to explain their concerns or requirements to us, any speculation only creates rumors. We should not promote those rumors but patiently wait. There is little we can do otherwise.

marcusbennett wrote:Regardless of whether or not this rumor is true, I would presume it is the responsibility of the developers to come up with new solutions, understand the concerns of the brethren and make modifications to address those concerns. I presume that has happened with home and visiting teaching proposals. I would hope the same could happen here with allowing lds.org access rights modification on a local level.

Exactly. The only thing we do know that is being worked on and should hopefully be coming within the next year are access rights to appropriate tools for organization leaders. Even though this has been discussed in many other threads with church employees stating it is coming, we have to realize the Church has limited development resources and a priority list driven by sponsoring Church departments. The priority list may not correlate with our own desires. Without a Church department to sponsor an application, a tool, or a feature, we have little chance of seeing these things come to pass.