RS (+EQ? +HP?) Role for Primary Workers

Discuss where to obtain or how to fill out specific reports or forms.
User avatar
fergie34-p40
New Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:34 pm
Location: Mastic, New York

Postby fergie34-p40 » Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:13 pm

I don't think they should be removed from the RS/Priesthood rolls. But if they could be added to the rolls of the class they are in then they wouldn't be out of sight. This way they are more likely to be counted and the other reports would not be changed.
Robert Ferguson
South Shore Ward, Plainview New York Stake

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 15128
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:12 pm

fergie34 wrote:I don't think they should be removed from the RS/Priesthood rolls. But if they could be added to the rolls of the class they are in then they wouldn't be out of sight. This way they are more likely to be counted and the other reports would not be changed.
Could you help me understand how this helps? An example of what we are talking about is a sister who is serving as the teacher of the CTR5 class in Primary. The concern is that she wouldn't be counted on the RS roll, which is what is required for the Quarterly Report. Putting her on the CTR5 roll would do nothing to help her be counted as attending RS, and it might throw off the Primary attendance numbers.

User avatar
mkmurray
Senior Member
Posts: 3241
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Postby mkmurray » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:11 pm

It's pretty straight-forward; it all comes down to this...

The answer is for the RS, EQ, and HP secretaries to correctly take the roll. I'm an EQ secretary right now. During EQ, I get up out of class and walk around the building marking those in other auxiliaries as present on the EQ roll; it takes 5 additional minutes. As a secretary, you really should know every individual in your quorum/group in order to take roll correctly. jbh001 gave the references for taking roll in Handbook 2 (pages 170 & 207).

lajackson
Community Moderators
Posts: 10230
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:27 pm
Location: US

Postby lajackson » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:12 pm

Alan_Brown wrote:Could you help me understand how this helps?
I do not think it would be worth the trouble, but I think the original proposal was not to take anyone off of their current roll, but to create a new class and populate it with members of the ward who teach or work outside of the Relief Society or Melchizedek Priesthood.

For example, Sister Jones would be on the RS roll, but would also be in the Out of RS "class". The clerk would give the regular RS roll to the RS along with the Out of RS Class Roll, which would remind the RS secretary/presidency that Sister Jones had another calling and should not be forgotten.

The question would be where to put such an extra "class", and whether to have one with both brothers and sisters on it, or a separate one for each organization (RS, EQ, HP).

That is how I understood the proposal. But, once again, I think it is complicated, difficult to keep up, and it would be better if the organization leaders knew why their members were absent, either that they were truly inactive, or rather that they never attended because they were faithfully teaching in Primary or Young Men or Young Women.

In other words, I think the current system is very good and the "know your sheep" principle might be the easiest way to handle the problem.

And yes, lots of training.

There was something to be said for the old system where we used to have to provide lists of names of those who did not attend. Everyone in our stake agonized over the requirement (and it may have just been the stake president who required it), but a whole lot of leaders quickly learned what their members were doing when they were not in a Melchizedek Priesthood Quorum or Relief Society on Sunday.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 30955
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:58 pm

lajackson wrote:There was something to be said for the old system where we used to have to provide lists of names of those who did not attend.
No, that's what I remember. That was back in the days when quarterly reports where done on a typewriter. I still had a computer to crank out lists, but the official membership record was either stored in a recipe box or a multi-ring binder. (And my most treasured tool was a red pen. :D)

Later it was changed to just number the missing. You still had to identify who wasn't coming to get the count, but you no longer had to supply the names.

jbh001
Community Moderators
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Postby jbh001 » Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:05 am

lajackson wrote:I do not think it would be worth the trouble, but I think the original proposal was not to take anyone off of their current roll, but to create a new class and populate it with members of the ward who teach or work outside of the Relief Society or Melchizedek Priesthood.

For example, Sister Jones would be on the RS roll, but would also be in the Out of RS "class". The clerk would give the regular RS roll to the RS along with the Out of RS Class Roll, which would remind the RS secretary/presidency that Sister Jones had another calling and should not be forgotten.
The problem with using rolls is that sometimes people legitimately show up in the rolls that shouldn't be counted in the statistical report (see Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1 (2006), page 143-144). Once I realized that, I started using the links from within the statistical report to print the lists I needed to collect the attendance information from the various organization secretaries needed for the statistical report. In our particular circumstance, it meant that Primary attendance when from 115% to 80%-95% overnight.

That is also why when I hand them that report, I remind them: "If there is anyone that is not on this list that should be, write their names in at the bottom so that I can follow up on it." Then I can track down why they are showing up on the primary rolls, but not in the statistical report and take any necessary corrective action.

You could add a second RS group and put the adult women serving in Primary and YW in that group, but that seems like magnifying the work of maintaining it. It is simpler to regularly teach the secretaries involved correct principles and let them govern themselves. You have that opportunity to teach those principles at least every three months.

Perhaps this is an incorrect practice, but I have instructed the RS secretary to automatically mark those serving in Primary and YW as attending REGARDLESS of whether they are actually showing up at church; the should ASSUME they are fulfilling their Primary, YW, or out-of-unit callings until they are released. My rationale is that it should NOT be the RS responsibility to see if they are actually fulfilling their callings. If a Primary teacher is not showing up to teach Primary, then the Primary president should be in contact with the bishopric about a replacement (same for YW). The RS shouldn't be tasked with policing the women in Primary and YW for attendance reports.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 30955
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:02 pm

jbh001 wrote:The problem with using rolls is that sometimes people legitimately show up in the rolls that shouldn't be counted in the statistical report
Like who?

jbh001 wrote:it meant that Primary attendance when from 115% to 80%-95% overnight.
Wouldn't that mean that you found people who should be on the rolls and weren't?

lajackson
Community Moderators
Posts: 10230
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:27 pm
Location: US

Postby lajackson » Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:04 pm

jbh001 wrote:I have instructed the RS secretary to automatically mark those serving in Primary and YW as attending . . .
I agree with this and believe it is the correct approach, for the very reasons you stated.

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 15128
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:26 pm

jbh001 wrote:The problem with using rolls is that sometimes people legitimately show up in the rolls that shouldn't be counted in the statistical report.
RussellHltn wrote:Like who?
Well, two categories that immediately come to mind are nonmembers, and 12-year-olds who are still in Primary for the Sunday School block. There are very good reason to have these people on rolls, but they do not get counted on the Primary section of the Quarterly report.

jbh001
Community Moderators
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Postby jbh001 » Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:14 pm

RussellHltn wrote:Wouldn't that mean that you found people who should be on the rolls and weren't?
No, it meant that that there were ~42 children on the Primary rolls, ~35 of which attended regularly, but the statistical report only showed ~30 children in Primary. (And, no, the children in Nursery weren't the cause.)

When the maximum number allowed by the statistical report is 30 children and you had ~35 children attending, what do you do? I did what I have previously stated and was eventually able to locate and address the discrepancies.

For example, our current Primary rolls for Sunbeams through Valiant 12 total 41 children. The list generated from the Statistical Report covering the same group totals 39 children. An examination of the discrepancy reveals that one child is 12 and attends Beehives, and another child is a 10-year-old child-of-record that has yet to be baptized (technically a nonmember).


Return to “Reports and Forms”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests