Membership Record ping pong

Discuss questions around local unit policies for membership (creating records, transferring records, etc.) This forum should not contain specific financial or membership information.
jtsummie
New Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:56 pm

Membership Record ping pong

Postby jtsummie » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:08 pm

Is there any good ideas on what to put in the comments of the membership records when they are sent to the unknown file? Our ward has very limited resources so it takes a lot of time and work to go through the steps (9?) before they are sent out. Just to have them return again. I currently have my clerk just resend them out when they come back, but it seems counter productive.

Thanks!

Gary_Miller
Senior Member
Posts: 1218
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:42 am
Location: Emmett, Idaho

Re: Membership Record ping pong

Postby Gary_Miller » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:02 pm

jtsummie wrote:Is there any good ideas on what to put in the comments of the membership records when they are sent to the unknown file?

After you have followed the 9 steps and still need to send them to the "unknown file" I would put anything that you may have uncovered that may be of help to those at CH who are working the unknown file. Such as the name of the town they may have moved to but you did not uncover an street address.


jtsummie wrote:Our ward has very limited resources so it takes a lot of time and work to go through the steps (9?) before they are sent out. Just to have them return again.

If you look at the date of when they were moved original out of your ward I think you will find that it was before the "9 steps" came into play last October 2012. As for limited resources your resources are only limited to all Home Teachers and Visiting Teachers, which in most wards is quite large.

jtsummie wrote:I currently have my clerk just resend them out when they come back, but it seems counter productive.

I never figured a mandate from the Prophet to rescue those who are lost to be "counter productive". Remember what the Jesus Christ said about the lost sheep. I think it went something like, who would not leave the ninety and nine to find the one that is lost.

In our ward it has already been productive. One of the names returned was of a 16 year old YW who's record had been in the "unknown" file since 2008 when our ward moved them. Using step 7, we were able to find her correct address and phone number which happened to be her mothers and not only move her record but also get her under the correct household. Now the unit where she is living (happens to be in our stake) knows about her and can work with her and her family to help them become active again. So while its not pleasant its by no means "counter Productive".

jtsummie
New Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:56 pm

Re: Membership Record ping pong

Postby jtsummie » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:27 pm

Sorry unproductive was the wrong word. I was just typing fast. Some of the names that we received back were sent out less than 6 months ago, and we had gone through all of the steps. We get next of kin letters often and those we seem to have a higher success rate in getting those lost records to the correct ward.

User avatar
johnshaw
Senior Member
Posts: 1838
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Syracuse, UT

Re: Membership Record ping pong

Postby johnshaw » Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:35 pm

jt,

The church knew it would be duplicating some effort in this regard, that is why the notication letter came out detailing exactly what they were doing. It didn't matter what had been done previously, the unknown file is being sent out gradually until each one goes through the process. It is duplicated effort in cases where over the last 6 months or so you followed the steps and still didn't find anything.

Yes it does inconvenience clerks who recently have been following all those steps (in those cases, I'm confident that a quick send back with documentation and detail stating your recent Finding efforts) will suffice.

In essence, you must think of yourself as someone that not only is serving in a calling as clerk to your local ward/branch/stake, but also as an extension of the support apparatus of the Central IT Staff, Finance Staff, Membership Staff, and other groups that make decisions to add workload to volunteer staff in wards and branches. It is a way the church saves money on employee costs for tithing. Like the Members who clean buildings, etc...

What we should do is watch the upcoming broadcast about service missionaries and see about calling some of those retired couples to volunteer on a mission to relieve the burden of clerks in the field!
“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.”
― Thomas Paine, Common Sense

garn12
New Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 3:51 pm

Re: Membership Record ping pong

Postby garn12 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 2:50 pm

JohnShaw wrote:jt,

The church knew it would be duplicating some effort in this regard, that is why the notication letter came out detailing exactly what they were doing.


I am new to the calling (new bishopric). How do I get my hands on that letter?

lajackson
Community Moderators
Posts: 6143
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:27 pm
Location: US

Re: Membership Record ping pong

Postby lajackson » Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:00 pm

garn12 wrote:I am new to the calling (new bishopric). How do I get my hands on that letter?

It is in the Official Communications Library. It was also posted in this thread.

The OCL is available in Leader Resources at the LDS.org site. I believe clerks can get there, too.

jwtaber
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:01 am
Location: Elsmere, Delaware, USA

Re: Membership Record ping pong

Postby jwtaber » Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:06 pm

Our stake overhauled boundaries in 2010, and many of the records we just got back were sent to AU before that. As such, several wards got records with previous addresses that are not now in their boundaries. I've asked those wards to not simply send those records to the unit where the address is now, but to investigate things themselves. Was this good advice? (My thought is, if a record passes through two wards, SLC might not recognize not to send it back to us again.)

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20763
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Re: Membership Record ping pong

Postby russellhltn » Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:16 pm

jwtaber wrote:to investigate things themselves. Was this good advice?

Presumably the new ward still has some members of the old ward. It would be worth at least asking the leadership what they know about the person.

jwtaber wrote:(My thought is, if a record passes through two wards, SLC might not recognize not to send it back to us again.)

Good question - they might not recognize the second ward's move out to address unknown and send it back to them. I'm not sure as anyone here knows the definitive answer.
Have you searched the Wiki?
Try using a Google search by adding "site:tech.lds.org/wiki" to the search criteria.

jdlessley
Community Moderators
Posts: 6526
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:30 pm
Location: USA, TX

Re: Membership Record ping pong

Postby jdlessley » Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:24 pm

jwtaber wrote:I've asked those wards to not simply send those records to the unit where the address is now, but to investigate things themselves.

A ward is only responsible for members within their boundaries. A last known address that is now within the boundaries of another ward is that ward's responsibility. Once that other ward has gone through the 9 steps they will have complied with the procedures for locating lost members.

jwtaber wrote:Was this good advice? (My thought is, if a record passes through two wards, SLC might not recognize not to send it back to us again.)

In my opinion two wards are now going to go through the 9 steps instead of one. Once the first ward goes through the steps and sends the record to address unknow it is very likely the record will then be sent to the ward in which the last known address is now located. It is likely that the records were sent to the original ward because there was no crosscheck done at headquarters to verify the address and the ward in which that address now belongs. Instead the ward from which the record was first sent to address unknown was the criteria used.
JD Lessley
Have you tried finding your answer on the LDS.org Help Center page or the LDSTech wiki?

jwtaber
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:01 am
Location: Elsmere, Delaware, USA

Re: Membership Record ping pong

Postby jwtaber » Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:48 pm

I'm not sure I agree with that line of reasoning, but it's certainly not worth arguing about.


Return to “Membership Help”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest