Elders Quorum Roll... Who do I count?

[bjfieeiki]

Hi everyone,

I'm the EQ President in a smallish ward in the south pacific and I have a question about who is supposed to attend Elders Quorum meetings..? As far as the roll is concerned, I understand that we count everyone who is on the official roll of the ward who is present in class, except those who are on missions and those who have other callings, who cannot attend because of these callings. I mark them present, is my understanding.

My question is... who, other than Young Men Leaders who are teaching their respective quorums, is rightfully excused from our Elders Quorum meetings?

We have a small ward and our class size can be a bit on the low side. With only two meetings per month now, I'm concerned we're not getting everyone involved, especially when I'm trying to get everyone excited about activities and ministering, etc!

I was told by the bishopric to mark all elders and high priests with callings as present, even if they are not in class... I'm questioning this instruction.

I can understand if someone is teaching a class, or if the bishop has an emergency interview, but other than that, am I expecting too much to ask for everyone else's attendance in the EQ meeting? What about Exec. Sec.? Ward Clerk? Bishop's counselors? What about high councilmen when they are not visiting another ward? We have 5 Stake called brethren in our EQ: 1st Counselor in Stake Presidency, Stake YM Pres, and 3 High Councilmen... none of them attend any meetings ever. Same with the bishopric and ex. secretary and ward clerk(s)... On my way to class I often see them in the offices talking stories to each other and wonder why they cannot attend my class. Am I really supposed to mark them as attending our classes when they do not contribute anything to our discussions and are not ever available to help teach classes because they are too 'busy'?

Okay, I'll stop venting, but I'm just trying to get things right. Hope this isn't too confusing.

Just let me know what you think I should do with my roll sheet.

Thanks brethren I appreciate your input!

[drepouille]

I tell everyone to ignore attendance and focus on activity. Click on the POTENTIAL link for each group in the Quarterly Report. How many of those POTENTIAL members do you consider to be active? Did they actually attend a meeting during the last month of the quarter, or were they serving elsewhere in a calling or mission? We may not count anyone who is not listed as a POTENTIAL member of each group.

[bjfieeiki]

I tell everyone to ignore attendance and focus on activity. Click on the POTENTIAL link for each group in the Quarterly Report. How many of those POTENTIAL members do you consider to be active? Did they actually attend a meeting during the last month of the quarter, or were they serving elsewhere in a calling or mission? We may not count anyone who is not listed as a POTENTIAL member of each group.

Thanks for the heads up! I just now checked our numbers for the 2nd quarter and we have 40 potential members. Of that number, 16 have attended at least one of our two classes in June, 1 active missionary, and 3 brethren in the YM Presidency are with the Aaronic Priesthood, so I am counting them. That's 20 total out of 40 potential. The others are less actives and the brethren with callings in the bishopric/ward clerk/ward secretary/stake presidency/stake YM president/high councilmen... I count them? or not? Should we be at 50% attendance for Q2? Or am I missing something?

[davesudweeks]

I tell everyone to ignore attendance and focus on activity. Click on the POTENTIAL link for each group in the Quarterly Report. How many of those POTENTIAL members do you consider to be active? Did they actually attend a meeting during the last month of the quarter, or were they serving elsewhere in a calling or mission? We may not count anyone who is not listed as a POTENTIAL member of each group.

Thanks for the heads up! I just now checked our numbers for the 2nd quarter and we have 40 potential members. Of that number, 16 have attended at least one of our two classes in June, 1 active missionary, and 3 brethren in the YM Presidency are with the Aaronic Priesthood, so I am counting them. That's 20 total out of 40 potential. The others are less actives and the brethren with callings in the bishopric/ward clerk/ward secretary/stake presidency/stake YM president/high councilmen... I count them? or not? Should we be at 50% attendance for Q2? Or am I missing something?

I think you need to let the spirit be your guide. In our ward, the Bishop never attends EQ - he attends with the youth, usually in the Priests quorum as President of the Quorum. He has his counselors assigned to attend with different youth or primary classes. Our Stake President has directed them to focus on the youth and let the RS/EQ/SS leaders focus on the adults. I am ward clerk and I usually try to attend EQ, but sometimes urgent matters come up that the Bishop assigns to me that prevent me from attending. If we had ward members who simply hung out in the foyer for convenience, I wouldn't count them. We have a few parents with special needs children who sometimes must keep them out of class and I would count them as they would be in the meetings if their circumstances allowed. I recommend always counting all members with stake callings. They are attending somewhere and are not counted where they are attending except for Sacrament meeting (just like full time missionaries). Do not count them for Sacrament meeting - that is a "nose count" of everyone present, member of your unit or not, member of the church or not.

[russellhltn]

I recommend always counting all members with stake callings. They are attending somewhere and are not counted where they are attending except for Sacrament meeting (just like full time missionaries).

I'd recommend that as well. Even if you find them in the office chatting about something, they might have to leave before the class is over.

Overall, I think the goal is knowing who is active and who isn't. And in particular, being alert for new names that are no longer attending. Those with stake callings are unlikely to be falling into activity.

Personally, I think the goal here is for for local leaders to be aware of individuals without passing the names up the chain of command. Hence, just numbers, but the act of putting together numbers triggers the analysis that the church is after.

[drepouille]

If anyone has a ward, stake, or mission calling that takes them away from their ward (EQ/RS) meetings, They should be counted as "attending".

I sometimes wish the report criteria were reversed. How many members of your elders quorum DID NOT ATTEND ANY MEETINGS during the last month of the quarter? Those are the folks that the quorum leaders need to focus on. Wouldn't that be an interesting topic of conversation during the PPI between the EQP and the stake presidency?
"You had 40% of your quorum who did NOT attend any quorum meeting during the month? Let's talk about THEM."

[russellhltn]

Back in the Jurassic period (when reports were done with typewriters), there was a box for number of people who hadn't attended any meeting. That's no longer done?

[lajackson]

Back in the Jurassic period (when reports were done with typewriters), there was a box for number of people who hadn't attended any meeting. That's no longer done?

Nope. And we are required no longer to send in the actual list of names of those not attending, which we used to do monthly in the 90s.

[jonesrk]

Back in the Jurassic period (when reports were done with typewriters), there was a box for number of people who hadn't attended any meeting. That's no longer done?

Nope. And we are required no longer to send in the actual list of names of those not attending, which we used to do monthly in the 90s.

When I was ward clerk I still asked for the names of those not attending, since that seemed to be the relevant info.

[scgallafent]

I sometimes wish the report criteria were reversed. How many members of your elders quorum DID NOT ATTEND ANY MEETINGS during the last month of the quarter? Those are the folks that the quorum leaders need to focus on. Wouldn't that be an interesting topic of conversation during the PPI between the EQP and the stake presidency?
"You had 40% of your quorum who did NOT attend any quorum meeting during the month? Let's talk about THEM."

Isn't that just the other side of the number that is captured? If 60% of the quorum attended at least one meeting during the last month of the quarter, that leaves 40% who didn't attend at least one meeting during the month. Who are those 40%?

Since those questions are two sides of the same coin, having numbers follow the same trends makes for a little less mental gymnastics. With the current question, bigger percentages are all good. That's a little easier than wanting some numbers to go up and others to go down.