Protecting Children and Youth Training Status for those without youth callings

[lajackson]

I am wondering whether this desire to have every possible substitute be required to first complete the training, is a local discretionary choice, or dictated by general policy?

In some places it is dictated by state law and the training legally has to take place before substitute service begins. Other states allow 30 days.

[russellhltn]

In some places it is dictated by state law and the training legally has to take place before substitute service begins. Other states allow 30 days.

Interesting. You'd think the Handbook's directives would reflect that.

[lajackson]

You'd think the Handbook's directives would reflect that.

It is a worldwide handbook based on principles. There is not room to include all of the variables. Leaders are responsible to know local laws and requirements.

Article of Faith 12 and Doctrine and Covenants 58:26.

[russellhltn]

It is a worldwide handbook based on principles. There is not room to include all of the variables.

Understood about the variables, but I would have thought that if it was at all common, the Handbook would reflect the more restrictive cases. As it is, 30 days after sustaining seems quite generous. (I'm guessing Utah doesn't have any such requirement. )

A good example of that (IMO) is the restriction against cooking in church kitchens. I believe it's there to avoid running afoul of local heath regulations that prohibit cooking for groups unless the kitchen is commercial grade and inspected. The restriction is due to law, but the church puts it in their Handbook.

[lajackson]

I would have thought that if it was at all common, the Handbook would reflect the more restrictive cases. As it is, 30 days after sustaining seems quite generous. (I'm guessing Utah doesn't have any such requirement. )

From what I have seen, 30 days is the general requirement, which is probably why it is in the Handbook. And truthfully, for places with more restrictive rules, the Church training usually does not qualify anyway.

I have not had a need to look up the Utah requirement. Anyone serving there should know what it is, of course.

Your kitchen example is a good one, but breaking the food heating rules will not land you in prison.

[BrianEdwards]

In my mind, there's a difference between "formal" substitute teachers who are already in place and ready to be used, and a "single-use" substitute teacher who is grabbed in the hallway because 5 Primary teachers didn't show up and they need two-deep help with the classes. I know that the Church is now much more careful about which adults are with youth/children and making sure they are trained. I'm just wondering if the spirit of the law also extends to anyone who might be asked to temporarily fill in, or if there's intentional flexibility for a local leader to determine where to make a distinction. If the Handbook and other online materials don't make this clarification, that's fine, -- but I don't want to be charting our own path if there was additional guidance.

[russellhltn]

I'm just wondering if the spirit of the law also extends to anyone who might be asked to temporarily fill in, or if there's intentional flexibility for a local leader to determine where to make a distinction.

The Handbook seems to give some leeway as it calls for training within 30 days of being sustained.

The real question is what the local laws say. They may not be so forgiving.

[davesudweeks]

In my mind, there's a difference between "formal" substitute teachers who are already in place and ready to be used, and a "single-use" substitute teacher who is grabbed in the hallway because 5 Primary teachers didn't show up and they need two-deep help with the classes. I know that the Church is now much more careful about which adults are with youth/children and making sure they are trained. I'm just wondering if the spirit of the law also extends to anyone who might be asked to temporarily fill in, or if there's intentional flexibility for a local leader to determine where to make a distinction. If the Handbook and other online materials don't make this clarification, that's fine, -- but I don't want to be charting our own path if there was additional guidance.

Your priesthood leaders are responsible for interpreting the handbook if there are questions. We can all give your opinions on the forum, but that is all they are.

My opinion: In this day and age, I would be wary of any Primary or YM/YW or SS presidency member just grabbing an available member "in the hall" or "from an adult class" to sit in with youth classes. That is a risky proposition at best. It might be fine, but if something bad happens it could get ugly very quickly. If I was bishop (I am not, currently), I would suggest combining classes first as a work around to use the teachers who have had the required safety training.

[EdHammond]

It would be best to just show the training status for any member; called or not. Delinquent training reports should flag those in an applicable calling. If a Ward Clerk is asked to be a substitute teacher, should he not have had the training? He is obviously trustworthy as a member. I imagine most have tacked the training, but good to show a positive acknowledgment of such.

[davesudweeks]

It would be best to just show the training status for any member; called or not. Delinquent training reports should flag those in an applicable calling.

I agree that would be best, but there is no report that shows which members have had the training. Only those in callings that require it are shown. That is the problem that is being discussed, if I understand correctly. If having a report that will show which members have current children and youth safety training (regardless of their calling) is valuable, one should provide feedback from the page where the report can be run.