Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 1:59 pm
lajackson wrote:Maybe I am missing something. Is this assistant ward clerk just setting up interview appointments without any coordination with the bishopric to see who actually needs them?
The way I read the original post, it seems that the assistant clerk has been duly assigned to perform this task. So I assume that the bishopric does coordinate with him -- just as there would be coordination with the executive secretary doing the work.
The technical question is really about how to assign privileges within the Leader Portal online for the assigned assistant to view such information there. And I think the answer, at least today, is that it can't be done. I do assume that the Leader Portal grants such privilege to the executive secretary.
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 9:50 pm
To clarify my original question...
The person who needs access to the temple recommend status is called, set apart, and entered in MLS as an "Assistant Clerk", although his role is more like an assistant executive secretary. His responsibility is to determine which recommends will expire in the next couple of months and schedule the bishopric interviews. The interviews are blocked out for specific times during the month, so there is very little coordination with the bishopric about who is scheduled. They just show up when they know there are interviews scheduled. He also coordinates with an assistant stake clerk to schedule these same members with the stake presidency.
It sounds like the rights to view reports on LDS.org are not sync'd with the MLS rights. Hopefully, that's something that is planned for the future. At this point, the assistant clerk will need to print the reports through MLS.
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:54 pm
swigginton wrote:It sounds like the rights to view reports on LDS.org are not sync'd with the MLS rights. Hopefully, that's something that is planned for the future.
I wouldn't count on that.
swigginton wrote:At this point, the assistant clerk will need to print the reports through MLS.
He might try using Control-Shift-C on the report to copy it to the Windows clipboard. Then he can paste it into a spreadsheet file he can take home on a USB drive. (I recommend using an encrypted type) This might come in handy for scheduling notes, email addresses, etc. Alternately, exporting the standard MLS export file Membership.csv from the File -> Export menu would ensure that all information, including name, recommend expiration month and contact information would be in a CSV file.
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:20 pm
swigginton wrote:We have an assistant ward clerk who is responsible for scheduling temple recommend interviews, but is unable to view the "Temple Recommend Status" report on lds.org. He has rights to "View Temple Recommend" in MLS, but for some reason, he does not see the recommend status report option on lds.org.
swigginton wrote:It sounds like the rights to view reports on LDS.org are not sync'd with the MLS rights.
You are correct. The rights granted on MLS to a user do not correspond to rights granted on the lds.org Leader Tools application.
All access rights on lds.org to include the Leader Tools application are granted based on the standard callings in MLS. There is no relationship between the access rights a user has in MLS and the rights granted on lds.org. (Including Leader Tools access based on MLS user rights has been suggested by others.)
As of late November 2010 the only positions that had been programmed for access to the Leader Tools within a ward are Bishop, Ward Executive Secretary, Ward Clerk. The counselors and assistant clerks are planned for inclusion. JonesRK could give us an update, but I do not know the status of this programming.
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:08 am
https://tech.lds.org/ldshelp/index.php5 ... ces_access
When I get requests from my bishopric for a list of members without callings, I always refer them to the Leader and Clerk Resources. But maybe I should check that they are actually getting in, because they still never seem to know what they want to know. I assumed they just weren't checking (though one would hope if they tried and failed they would have said something).