Out-of-unit access to ward directory without out-of-unit calling?

[djrobertson]

A former member of our ward has a primary residence in another state but still owns a house in our ward and makes occasional extended visits here. He was told that members can now have access to two ward directories and has asked me to grant him access to our directory while keeping his records in his home ward. I wasn't aware this was an option and the only way I can think to do this would be to set him up as an out-of-unit member, which wouldn't be appropriate because he doesn't have an out-of-unit calling our our ward, he just visits occasionally. Is this correct or is there really a way to grant out-of-unit access to our directory?

[BrianEdwards]

A former member of our ward has a primary residence in another state but still owns a house in our ward and makes occasional extended visits here. He was told that members can now have access to two ward directories and has asked me to grant him access to our directory while keeping his records in his home ward. I wasn't aware this was an option and the only way I can think to do this would be to set him up as an out-of-unit member, which wouldn't be appropriate because he doesn't have an out-of-unit calling our our ward, he just visits occasionally. Is this correct or is there really a way to grant out-of-unit access to our directory?

GHB 33.6.5 doesn't explicitly address this, and does give leeway by stating "Some circumstances require that a member’s name and contact information be recorded in a secondary ward." And having a calling is an option for an out-of-unit member, but not a requirement.

However, that limited flexibility is for circumstances that require, not where it makes things more convenient. And the two referenced example scenarios in GHB 33.6.5 aren't anything like what you describe. So my default feeling is that this situation doesn't meet the requirements for out-of-unit records (without knowing any additional details of course).

That said, this falls into the guidance given in GHB 0.4, where questions not addressed in the handbook should be taken to the local priesthood authority.

[djrobertson]

Thanks, this is helpful. I'll run it by the bishop of course, but I'm concluding that (a) the only way to give an out-of-unit member access to our directory in a situation like this would be to create an out-of-unit record for them, and (b) this situation doesn't fit any of the usual reasons given for creating an out-of-unit record. So I think the solution is printing the member a hard copy.

[sbradshaw]

If it's not appropriate to create an out-of-unit record, I don't think it would be appropriate to print him a directory either.

How long and frequent are the extended visits? If he only visits for a couple of weeks at a time, or if he only visits once every couple of years, there may not be a need to create an out-of-unit membership record. But if his visits are long enough or frequent enough that he would benefit from ward members knowing who he is – appearing on rolls, etc. – then I think it could make sense to create an out-of-unit membership record (with approval of the bishop). I don't read 33.6.5 as being very restrictive, and it seems more secure to provide online access to ward tools than printing a paper directory.

[RBeatse]

We have a couple in our ward that owns a home in AZ and then the one in our ward that use from about May-Sept. We created an out-of-unit record for them so that they can be included in everything. They showed me just the other day that they can see both directories in Tools.