Request Bishop contact on a membership

Use this forum to discuss issues that are not found in any of the other clerk and stake technology specialist forums.
User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 15123
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:38 am

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.
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.

fletcher.carpenter
New Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:52 pm
Location: United States, Mesa, AZ

Postby fletcher.carpenter » Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:50 pm

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.

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 15123
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:11 pm

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.
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.

lajackson
Community Moderators
Posts: 9720
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:27 pm
Location: US

Postby lajackson » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:56 pm

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.

bcpalmer60
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:07 pm
Location: Arvada, CO (suburb of Denver)

Postby bcpalmer60 » Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:13 am

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?
Brian C. Palmer
Arvada, Colorado, USA

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 15123
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:35 am

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.
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 29368
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:50 pm

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".
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.

sghall
New Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:08 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Postby sghall » Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:09 pm

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.

rpyne
Member
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:13 pm
Location: Provo, Utah, USA

Postby rpyne » Fri Sep 17, 2010 10:28 pm

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".

kisaac
Community Moderators
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:04 am
Location: Utah, united states

Postby kisaac » Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:50 am

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.


Return to “General Clerk Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests