idjeeper2 wrote:I lean away from giving the PEC an easy way out.
Having a "not reported" category would increase the PEC's responsibility (as I see it), not give them a way out. If HT and VT reports had any "not reported" values when I reviewed them, I'd call my leaders and say "Please contact those brethren/sisters and get the reports by the end of the day."
As it stands, I interview my leaders every month asking "are these 'not visited' families accurate or did someone forget to enter reports?" So we end up making effort for the 30-40% with an empty checkbox instead of the 5-10% who didn't report.
idjeeper2 wrote:I would suggest that you start with your priesthood and relief society leadership.
Rather than review the reports in a vacuum, take some time to quiz them specifically about each family/sister that is shown as not visited.
That's great counsel. I've been doing that for about 5 years now
That's largely what motivates my suggestion. As long as an unchecked box means both "not visited" and "not reported", those interviews become a book keeping session where I try to ferret out which families truly weren't visited.
Often, during these interviews or in ward council, I ask "did home teachers visit the Jones family this month?" My elders quorum, high priests or relief society leader says "I'm not sure. Maybe Brother Williams just didn't report it yet" This back and forth is not productively ministering to the needs of our people. A slight change to the reporting mechanism would clarify and eliminate this wasted effort.
Perhaps I should have all leaders send their HT and VT reports to me on paper. A "Y" means "visited", an "N" means "not visited". A blank means "not yet reported". I'll discuss that idea with my ward council at our next meeting.