Deleting users

[russellhltn]

I made the recommendation that MLS be changed to allow authorization of finance transactions to be made only by users with logins linked to membership records.

OK, how does a stake clerk create a backup login on a ward computer when his records are not in that unit?

Second question: Wouldn't it be cheaper to issue a letter clarifying the use of logins and making it an item on the audit?

[danpass]

OK, how does a stake clerk create a backup login on a ward computer when his records are not in that unit?

I didn't say that all logins should have to be linked to a record. I suggested that a membership record linked login only be required for authorizing finance transactions. So for instance, when a user attempts to authorize a batch transmittal, if his login is not linked to a record, he should get an error message. It is a simple enough matter to create the linkage in the event that it was overlooked. In setting up the ward computers in my stake, I did create a Stake Admin login in each ward's MLS, as recommended in the installation instructions. Hmmm, I just remembered that I still have the original instructions that came as part of the MLS Implementation Packet...

In the section titled MLS Installation Guide for Ward and Branch Systems, at the top of page 4, we have...

"Add Additional MLS users. The bishop determines who should have access to MLS. Each user requires a user ID, password and access rights. The administrator enters these members as MLS users. If the user is a ward member, he or she should be linked to a member record on the database."

This is followed by instructions on how to add users and assign rights. Then the following...

"When MLS is installed at the wards, it is recommended that a stake administrator be given a system administration account on the ward level also. This will allow someone from the stake to assist the ward as necessary."

While not recommending any rules or conventions for user IDs, it is clear that users who are ward members should be linked to records. The wording in the second part, regarding the stake administration account suggests to me the choice of a generic user ID would be appropriate (at least in this instance), since it would be used by "someone from the stake to assist the ward".

[srweight]

This is correct. Since it is possible for a login to not be linked to a membership record, I made the recommendation that MLS be changed to allow authorization of finance transactions to be made only by users with logins linked to membership records. This would ensure that both data elements are available to store in the transaction record.

As STS I have had need to login and fix transmission problems. I use a generic login on all of the stake/ward computers and need to be able to at least transmit finance transactions to reslove problems.

[danpass]

Since it is possible for a login to not be linked to a membership record, I made the recommendation that MLS be changed to allow authorization of finance transactions to be made only by users with logins linked to membership records. This would ensure that both data elements are available to store in the transaction record.

As STS I have had need to login and fix transmission problems. I use a generic login on all of the stake/ward computers and need to be able to at least transmit finance transactions to reslove problems.

That's a situation that had not occurred to me. So my suggestion would not be the way to go, unless there was a way to make an exception to the rule in the event that the user is a stake administrator

[vernondcole]

Good point. As District Clerk I am both the technology specialist, and the acting clerk in a small branch who has not had a clerk for several years. I often print checks and authorize donation batches in that branch where I am not a member. I don't think using the position title as a user name is a great idea at all.

[wadeburt]

We really need guidance from CHQ on this issue.

I was Assistant Clerk for Technology when we deployed MLS originally, and specifically remember being told to use position names in all units. Even at the Stake level, we use position names and attach those to a member. In Wards, we have a Stake Clerk backup account that is administrator. We also have a High Counselor account to allow the High Counselor to retrieve a backup in the event no one in the Ward can get him one. The Stake Auditor uses this account as well.

We have set up usernames Bishop, 1stcounselor, 2ndcounselor, clerk, finclerk, memclerk, rspres, eqp, and many others into which we move the member currently called in that position. This has worked well for several years now.

If we need to change this setup, it would take some work. We have units that are quite a distance (2 hours) from the Stake Center. I am blessed to have 4 Assistants, but it would still take time to do the actual work, plus more time to train the units.

If we need to re-write our Stake policy on this issue, someone should advise. Otherwise, I am sticking with what works.

[Skyhawk-p40]

I actually received direction on this previously from Church HQ. They informed me that every individual needs a separate username, unique to the person and not the position. Here's why:

1) Brother Smith changes items 1-10 under username FInanceClerk.
2) He is subsequently released, and Brother Jones takes over the position and modifies the username to match his record number.
3) Brother Jones modifies items 11-20.

However, the username will show that Brother Jones modified all the items (1-20) and there will be no trace that Brother Smith even touched 1-10. For that reason, each person needs an individualized username. The stake clerk would have to create a username on every machine (which could just be JRoberts or something like that), as well as the high counselor or stake auditor.

I hope this helps out with your question!

[jeromer7]

I actually received direction on this previously from Church HQ. They informed me that every individual needs a separate username, unique to the person and not the position.

The explanation provided makes sense. However, as we've seen here, there is confusion "in the field" on what seems to me to be a very serious issue, i.e., traceability.

We who read the fourms can take this information and seek to implement the proper form within our various areas of responsibility. But what of all those hundreds of clerks who are not tuned into this channel? Official guidance via letter seems to me to be the one sure way to inform all (alas, that doesn't guarantee compliance, but you have to start somewhere) and then follow up with very explicit guidance in the Clerk Training and MLS Help.

[opee]

The stake clerk would have to create a username on every machine (which could just be JRoberts or something like that), as well as the high counselor or stake auditor.

I hope this helps out with your question!

MLS instructions say that there should be a Stake Admin on each of the ward computers for support and assistance. Does this statement mean that if a Stake Clerk (or Assistant Stake) gives "support", they should (1) first login as the Stake Clerk Admin, then (2) create an actual username with the Stake Clerk's membership attached. Then (3) logout of the Admin and (4) login as their personal username, then (5) continue with the help/support of financial or membership data?

[srweight]

MLS instructions say that there should be a Stake Admin on each of the ward computers for support and assistance. Does this statement mean that if a Stake Clerk (or Assistant Stake) gives "support", they should (1) first login as the Stake Clerk Admin, then (2) create an actual username with the Stake Clerk's membership attached. Then (3) logout of the Admin and (4) login as their personal username, then (5) continue with the help/support of financial or membership data?

How many wards is the Stake Clerk a member of?