Tech Forum

srweight wrote:How many wards is the Stake Clerk a member of?

Good point, I didn't think that one through. I guess I was thinking the lookup at the ward MLS would have the stake clerk under the membership, but that would only happen if he is in that particular ward.

Therefore if a Stake Admin is going to help with financial matters, then it will not be linked to a membership name... right?

It would be nice if there were some way to hide Inactive accounts, a link at the top near the add user link that would hide/show inactive accounts.

How can i get a sample MLS database? for use in trainning meetings?

RetamalesDA wrote:How can i get a sample MLS database? for use in trainning meetings?

The process is described at http://www.ldsclerks.com/index.php?title=MLS_Test_Data.

RetamalesDA wrote:How can i get a sample MLS database? for use in trainning meetings?

Check out this thread: http://tech.lds.org/forum/showthread.php?t=974

...and most especially this post: http://tech.lds.org/forum/showthread.php?p=9610

EDIT: Actually his link to the LDS Clerks Wiki is probably better. But there are thread about this topic already on the forum. Don't be afraid to search!

Let's resurrect this subject, especially in light of MLS 2.9 just coming out. Lot's of discussion last year, but I still don't feel there was resolution - maybe I missed an official communication from HQ or something?

1. Should we be creating usernames that are unique to the individual or simply the calling? One thought, if it were individual, I believe there would be a much greater risk of forgetting to remove privileges, as well as keeping track of a long list of usernames, both inactive and active.

2. One of the original questions on this thread was about how to remove inactive usernames in order to clean up the list. I've got units that are starting to misspell "2nd counseler" just so they can put in another person in that position, when they can't remove the first one (listed as 2nd counselor).

Any changes here with 2.9?

Ivan wrote:Let's resurrect this subject, especially in light of MLS 2.9 just coming out. Lot's of discussion last year, but I still don't feel there was resolution - maybe I missed an official communication from HQ or something?

1. Should we be creating usernames that are unique to the individual or simply the calling? One thought, if it were individual, I believe there would be a much greater risk of forgetting to remove privileges, as well as keeping track of a long list of usernames, both inactive and active.

2. One of the original questions on this thread was about how to remove inactive usernames in order to clean up the list. I've got units that are starting to misspell "2nd counseler" just so they can put in another person in that position, when they can't remove the first one (listed as 2nd counselor).

Any changes here with 2.9?

1. Although there was a tantalizing post in this thread that seemed to indicate that there would be a change in MLS 2.9, if you examine the last post in that thread, you will see that nothing has really changed on the question of connecting users to members as opposed to callings. I still have hope....

2. I doubt that there will be any change with deleting users. Where users are associated with transactions, and transactions must be retained for the record retention period (3 years plus current year in the US, 5 years in Canada), such users will not be deleted but can only be inactivated until the retention period for that user's transactions has expired.

Regardless of the scheme units use for creating MLS users, it should be a disciplined process; I don't have a lot of sympathy for units that are haphazard in the way they create users and then complain about the very minor inconvenience of having a long list of inactive users. Although I strongly discourage the use of calling names for users, if you do operate this way, there is no reason to try to remove one just because there is a new person in the calling -- just change the person assigned to the username for that calling.

Ivan wrote:1. Should we be creating usernames that are unique to the individual or simply the calling?

2. One of the original questions on this thread was about how to remove inactive usernames in order to clean up the list.

1. The original MLS guildelines said that each individual should have a login. This was a change from MIS/FIS where each individual used one of three general logins, depending on their level of needed access.

We took that MLS instruction to mean that the login should identify the individual. MLS 2.9 has taken this a step further by requiring that each login be attached to a specific membership record. The help desk will also tell you this if you ask them the question. I would be the first to agree that this is not clearly indicated in any written document I have seen.

Personally, I believe this allows better accountability. You know who authorized the deposit. You can find out who made a change if there was a problem or more training is needed. You know who did what. For me, the login lajackson tells me more than the login 2nd counselor.

2. Once a login has been established, if any financial transaction is taken under that login (most commonly participating in a weekly deposit), that login cannot be removed for the required number of retention years. Instead, it is made inactive.

The only person who sees the inactive logins is an administrator who goes into the login list and looks. That person should already be familiar with who should or should not have an active login. And, if there are no red checks next to that person's name, the administrator does not have to worry about that login anyway. It will go away in a few years on its own.

Agreed, lajackson!

In Australia the retention period for financial records, for tax purposes, is now seven years. Wards have to retain hard copy that long, which entails a 'records retention' procedure. But with regard to this Question of Usernames that do not go away - 7 Yrs looks like the local answer for me.

I implemented Username (a brief variable of person/calling et al) and this has made it simpler, since keying in the First Letter usually brings up the unique Username of the person (cunning huh?). So far so good.

But before this evening it had not occured to me the REAL reason the dead usernames don't go away is because bishopric members who were released were co-signees of Weekly Financial Reports!

Too Easy!

I guess we could always recycle logins. Replace DaffyDuck with MickeyMouse.....yes, it's late. This way you don't remove you just reuse login records. Just a thought....