Visibility for other wards

[andypoulsen]

Hello,

I'm currently serving on the stake high council, and one of my responsibilities is to advise one of the wards. When I view the ward directory (either on the website or using the Member Tools app), I can see the adults in that ward, but none of the youth (which is the default privacy for families who aren't in my ward -- totally understandable). As I'm trying to learn the names of the kids in the ward (I already know most of the adults), it would be really handy to have the visibility to see the kids' names for that ward.

What would be required to get that visibility? I'm guessing there would need to be some additional flags created or something like that so that the stake clerk could toggle visibility for certain wards on and off. Alternatively, is there a calling (such as assistant stake membership clerk or some such) that could provide visibility into the names of people without exposing all their other personal/financial info?

Thanks!

andy

[russellhltn]

What would be required to get that visibility? I'm guessing there would need to be some additional flags created or something like that so that the stake clerk could toggle visibility for certain wards on and off.

You have to hold a calling that grants those rights. There are no flags that anyone can set.

Alternatively, is there a calling (such as assistant stake membership clerk or some such) that could provide visibility into the names of people without exposing all their other personal/financial info?

Some wards and stakes were abusing the assistant clerk calling. As a result, there's a limit as to how many can be called. Assistant Clerk would grant too many rights.

You might try checking what you can see in LCR. Any expanded access tends to find it's way to LCR before the Directory.

[drepouille]

I suspect that this lack of visibility is by design. Perhaps the Brethren see no need for a high councilor to know the names of children and youth in other wards of his stake, since the leaders of those other wards have that oversight responsibility.

[andypoulsen]

Some wards and stakes were abusing the assistant clerk calling. As a result, there's a limit as to how many can be called. Assistant Clerk would grant too many rights.

You might try checking what you can see in LCR. Any expanded access tends to find it's way to LCR before the Directory.

Yeah, that makes sense. I will see if there's anything else in LCR. Thanks for the suggestion!

I suspect that this lack of visibility is by design. Perhaps the Brethren see no need for a high councilor to know the names of children and youth in other wards of his stake, since the leaders of those other wards have that oversight responsibility.

You are likely correct. I guess it all comes down to how people perform their callings. I know many people who have no idea who their ward advisor is. Previously, many people in the ward I now advise (including some in leadership roles) felt for a long time that they were "on the outside" and that the stake hardly knew or cared about them both individually and as a ward. This was, of course, not true, but that was their feeling.

When I became the advisor, I committed to myself that I would do whatever I could to change that perception. I am (or was, prior to this current situation) in their meetings almost every week, and try to greet as many members as possible by name to let them know they're known and loved. Several times, when I first started doing this, people were genuinely surprised and asked "You know who I am?" I try to do the same with the kids -- any time a child or youth (heck, it even applies to adults) is acknowledged in a positive way, especially by an adult, that's a good thing.

I freely admit that I'm a bit odd, and this isn't a very common thing (even among the other HC folks in my stake), so it probably doesn't make sense to open this up on a larger scale. I'll just work with the ward to make sure I'm doing what I can to help in whatever way I can.

Thanks for your comments and insights!

andy

[russellhltn]

I suspect that this lack of visibility is by design. Perhaps the Brethren see no need for a high councilor to know the names of children and youth in other wards of his stake, since the leaders of those other wards have that oversight responsibility.

That's true of many stake callings. Their responsibility is to advise the leadership, not working with members. Handbook 5.3 seems to indicate this as well.

Something I've always noticed as odd is there's no way to record what ward a HC is assigned to. Without that, there's no way to grant rights based on assignments. But if the role is to be adviser and not supervisor, then that makes sense.

[andypoulsen]

That's true of many stake callings. Their responsibility is to advise the leadership, not working with members. Handbook 5.3 seems to indicate this as well.

A good point. While I do the work/advising with the leadership, since we've been instructed to bring the love of the stake presidency to the wards, I think it's probably not a bad thing to help the members of that ward feel that love individually on a more personal level (while still letting them know that their ward leaders are their path of support and communication).

Something I've always noticed as odd is there's no way to record what ward a HC is assigned to. Without that, there's no way to grant rights based on assignments. But if the role is to be adviser and not supervisor, then that makes sense.

Yes, that is interesting, though your additional insight on it makes perfect sense -- Thanks for sharing!

Have a great weekend, and stay safe!

[drepouille]

As far as HC attending bishopric and ward council meetings -- I have seen this practice go back and forth. Some wards felt that the HC was "supervising" the bishopric, and the HC was asked to back off, and only attend if the stake presidency had given him a specific reason to attend ward leadership meetings. If there is no stake business to conduct, then the HC can just attend his own ward.

[andypoulsen]

As far as HC attending bishopric and ward council meetings -- I have seen this practice go back and forth. Some wards felt that the HC was "supervising" the bishopric, and the HC was asked to back off, and only attend if the stake presidency had given him a specific reason to attend ward leadership meetings. If there is no stake business to conduct, then the HC can just attend his own ward.

I can totally see that, and I think it's been a point in our stake as well. Currently, our stake has left it up to the bishop's discretion (unless, of course, there is stake business). The bishop in the ward I advise said he likes having me there, as the ward appreciates feeling acknowledged by the stake. So even if I'm not doing any stake business, just by being there I'm contributing positively to the ward.

[russellhltn]

While I do the work/advising with the leadership, since we've been instructed to bring the love of the stake presidency to the wards,

That's ok, but I don't see that in the Handbook. The folks that write the Handbook are the same ones that give the programmers their marching orders.

This wouldn't be the first time that the local vision of what a calling should be didn't match what the electronics systems allow them to do because it's not in the Handbook. That comes up fairly frequently here.

For whatever reason, the Brethren are not trusting of delegating the decision-making keys when it comes to privacy. Sadly, it's likely from experience. President Monson had a pretty good talk in a closed meeting talking about the stuff that comes up to the First Presidency to ratify because something was done out of order. "Will you ratify, will you ratify. Maybe a better question is will we release!" Some of the stories were mind-boggling.

[andypoulsen]

For whatever reason, the Brethren are not trusting of delegating the decision-making keys when it comes to privacy. Sadly, it's likely from experience. President Monson had a pretty good talk in a closed meeting talking about the stuff that comes up to the First Presidency to ratify because something was done out of order. "Will you ratify, will you ratify. Maybe a better question is will we release!" Some of the stories were mind-boggling.

Yes, I agree it's almost certainly due to bad decisions by some folks (makes me think of some of the absurd warnings on product packaging that are almost certainly there because of someone using the product ... let's say "creatively" in a way for which it never was intended...)

I imagine some of those stories must have been pretty crazy! In any case, thanks again for all your comments and insight!