Page 1 of 2

Level of Access for High Councilors and CSM

Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 6:44 pm
by sgdonovan
I have a question on how much access is needed for high councilors and church service missionaries serving within their own stake... When I got into the stake I saw that we had a several asst stake clerks, and now that I've been called a few months ago as stake clerk I've been wondering on what the proper protocol is on giving stake members access. For our high councilors serving in specific wards, they've been put in as asst stake clerks to give them access to reports, and then in order for our church service missionaries to be able to view the missionary progress records we've also been putting them in as asst stake clerks too. Is there any specific policy that I should be following on this or will our work-around suffice for the time being?

Re: Level of Access for High Councilors and CSM

Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:14 pm
by russellhltn
The problem with calling people to be a assistant stake clerk is that gives them broad rights that probably goes beyond what they should have. This includes admin access to the stake calendar.

LCR does grant more access to HC then they used to. But you may want to review the following with the stake president:

From Leader and Clerk Resources (LCR) FAQs
"Stake auxiliary leaders and high councilors are primarily responsible to instruct and support ward auxiliary and Melchizedek Priesthood leaders. They orient newly called ward auxiliary and Melchizedek Priesthood leaders and provide encouragement, support, and instruction. They are not responsible for individual ward members. It is the ward clerk’s responsibility to train ward auxiliary and Melchizedek Priesthood leaders on record-keeping tools and responsibilities. If stake auxiliary leaders and high councilors need a list of members for planning purposes, they should request this information through the ward or stake clerk."

It would appear to me, at least for the High Councilor, that there may be a disconnect between what they think their responsibilities are and how the brethren view their responsibilities. They are not managers or supervisors.

Re: Level of Access for High Councilors and CSM

Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2017 1:14 pm
by sbradshaw
Giving several people the calling of stake assistant clerk just so they can have access to certain reports seems like dangerous territory. It's OK (and sometimes helpful) to have legitimate, sustained, and trained assistant clerks, but access for members not involved in record keeping is restricted for a reason.

On Leader and Clerk Resources, there's an access table that shows everything on LCR that the "Stake Assistant Clerk" position has access to:
https://www.lds.org/mls/mbr/access-table?lang=eng
Note that there's both a Membership and a Finance section of the access table (tab at the top).

In addition, the stake assistant clerk calling gives full administrative rights to the LDS.org Calendar at the stake level, and other miscellaneous systems that aren't directly tied to Leader and Clerk Resources (Handbook 1, CDOL, ordering supplies at Store.LDS.org on behalf of the stake, leadership login to SI.LDS.org, etc.).

Re: Level of Access for High Councilors and CSM

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 8:43 pm
by sgdonovan
Thank you for your responses.

Re: Level of Access for High Councilors and CSM

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:15 am
by johnshaw
People are given their correct access by the calling they have in MLS/LCR. plain and simple - anything other than that, what I'd call 'funny business' better be carefully considered. It likely means that someone other than the correct person is being assigned a task. My absolute favorite thing about the new changes... servers to help enforce the delegated authority structure in place in the handbook, access is given as required by the calling, what what is assumed to be needed or required by individuals in those callings or otherwise, and rather than thinking about how to 'get around' the issue, we should be trying to figure out why we're attempting to do things to 'get around' it rather than work within it.

Re: Level of Access for High Councilors and CSM

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 6:50 pm
by sgdonovan
My stake president recently asked me to remove the high councilors as asst stake clerks since they do have the access they need per their calling, but we still haven't found out what to do about full-time live at home senior couple missionaries within in our stake to make sure they have the access they need. Does anyone have any experience in this area and could help provide some insight?

Re: Level of Access for High Councilors and CSM

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:00 pm
by russellhltn
sgdonovan wrote:but we still haven't found out what to do about full-time live at home senior couple missionaries within in our stake to make sure they have the access they need.
That raises a few questions - what is their mission? What is their responsibilities? Is this a "mission from home" or are their records in another stake?

Depending on their responsibilities, the access given to a normal member of the stake may be sufficient.

Re: Level of Access for High Councilors and CSM

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 8:37 am
by sgdonovan
They are full-time senior couples missionaries living within their home stake assigned to at least one or more units. They proselyte and attend missionary meetings and report like the younger elders and sisters serving.

Re: Level of Access for High Councilors and CSM

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 8:55 am
by johnshaw
If they are in the stake, they have all the needed information. They should work through mission leaders in wards in the unlikely event their default permissions are not enough.

This brings up a question, though, what level of access does a full time young proselytizing missionary get that might bypass the LCR access table?

Re: Level of Access for High Councilors and CSM

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 2:33 pm
by russellhltn
johnshaw wrote:If they are in the stake, they have all the needed information.
You'd think so. At least in the US. But if we're dealing with an area with UK privacy standards, that's going to be quite restrictive.

I'd expect any rights to be granted by virtue of the mission. So it may be a question of how the mission has entered them. I don't think this is a responsibility of the ward or stake clerk.