How about another name for "building scheduler"?

I am proposing a new name for "building scheduler" since there have been discussions in numerous other threads about the confusion that reigns when calendar terms do not adequately reflect the function they have. In this thread the term "reservation" is being discussed.

The term "building scheduler" is a carryover from an old scheduling paradigm when a single person received and approved scheduling requests. The current calendar uses the distributed scheduling paradigm. Therefore the role of the "building scheduler" is not to schedule events but rather to manage a location and the resources at that location. Also some building schedulers are assigned to locations that are not buildings at all.

I propose the name "location coordinator" since the person is assigned to a location and coordinates it's scheduling and the location's resources (rooms and equipment) scheduling. I am not hard on the name I propose. I am open to other choices that more adequately reflect the actual functions of the role. Any other suggestions?

How about "arbitrator" since other than setting "Restrictions" (the new name for Reservations), arbitrating conflicts seems to be their only other role. (Unless combined with one or more Calender Editor functions.)

So in the new language, any calendar editor can schedule the building for their event, but it's the Location Arbitrator that is called upon when there's a conflict.

But if a stake wants to give an individual editing rights to all the stake calendars, and make him a "Location Arbitrator", then they can internally call him a building scheduler if they want. <grin>

"location coordinator" is a better fit than the "Building moderator" i proposed in this post

I agree that "building scheduler" isn't accurate anymore and using it makes it more difficult to switch to the new paradigm.

"Location coordinator" sounds OK. The only other term I can think of is "location specialist" which probably isn't better.

kd7mha wrote:"location coordinator" is a better fit than the "Building moderator" i proposed in this post

I knew I had made a post in a similar thread - just had no idea how to search for it. Obviously I have changed some of my position since posting a response to your post.

But will "coordinator" change anyone's paradigm? When I think of the word, it translates to "keeper of the calendar".

RussellHltn wrote:But will "coordinator" change anyone's paradigm? When I think of the word, it translates to "keeper of the calendar".

I think "coordinator" is less related to scheduling and therefore easier to disassociate from scheduling.

I thought about "manager" but that is too strong an inference to having more powers and far greater responsibilities than the person would really have.

I have been looking at the rights the position has as found here. I have been trying to extrapolate something from that list.

• Building schedulers have complete control over the events taking place in their locations, regardless of the calendar. They can update the details for any event scheduled in their location.
• Building schedulers can reserve locations for wards at specific, recurring times. For example, they can reserve the cultural hall for the 1st Ward every Tuesday night.
• Building schedulers can block out the calendar for a specific location, preventing any calendar editor from scheduling it. Blocking the calendar allows the stake or ward to keep the resource free from reservation.
• Building schedulers can change details about the resources available at his or her location.

I agree that "building scheduler" is problematic because people in this role cannot "schedule" anything. They are surprised to learn that they suddenly do not schedule events for wards; they merely make reservations and adjust existing events if necessary. No doubt changing the name would help relieve some of the confusion.

At one time, I searched for references in the Handbook to the "building scheduler" calling and had a hard time finding any more than one or two brief, vague references.

By the way, is there a term for the head building scheduler for the stake? Who do all the individual ward building schedulers report to?

johnsonth wrote:By the way, is there a term for the head building scheduler for the stake? Who do all the individual ward building schedulers report to?

There is no such thing as a head building scheduler. It does require a stake administrator of some sort to designate a building scheduler for a particular location, but then once they have been designated as such, they are the only person who has the special powers reserved for building schedulers for that building (access to the reservations calendar, and ability to edit all events in the location, and ability to override reservations). They can function quite autonomously. They really report to the agent bishop, more than anyone at the stake level, once a stake admin has set them up.

johnsonth wrote:By the way, is there a term for the head building scheduler for the stake?

If there is one, our stake does not have one. We do have a "Stake Building Scheduler". But that person is just the building scheduler for the stake center.

johnsonth wrote:Who do all the individual ward building schedulers report to?

I have seen nothing that states to whom a building scheduler would report. Using the logic of the assignment there are two possibilities. Since a stake administrator must designate each location's building scheduler(s) then it would follow that a building scheduler is responsible to someone on the stake leadership staff. To me the best choice would be the stake clerk since in our stake he has been given the responsibility to ensure they are trained.

Another choice, and the best one in my opinion, would be the agent bishop for the building since he is responsible for managing facility use. Typically in the past under the single point of scheduling the agent bishop assigned the building scheduler and provided the guidelines for scheduling.

Thanks for clarifying this. I updated the paragraph in the help that had some inaccurate information.

johnsonth wrote:Thanks for clarifying this. I updated the paragraph in the help that had some inaccurate information.

The remaining statement may be somewhat inaccurate also. It states:

Stake administrators can designate building schedulers for each ward.

I don't know if you were thinking about a ward or a location in that statement. Stake administrators only need to designate one building scheduler per location. For multiple ward meetinghouses if each ward feels they need to have a building scheduler then the stake administrators can most definitely designate one for each ward. Having multiple building schedulers per location have both pros and cons.

Edit: OK, disregard. Tom changed he word "ward" to "location" while I was composing.

Good catch. I updated that sentence just now to change "ward" to "location."

There has been some time since this thread was started yet I have not heard of any feedback as to whether the term is going to be changed. It is apparent that something needs to be done as noted by the number of threads that continue to be started by those confused about the term and what the role is.