Do Not Contact list

Use this forum to discuss issues that are not found in any of the other clerk and stake technology specialist forums.
User avatar
mkmurray
Senior Member
Posts: 3266
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

#31

Post by mkmurray »

marianomarini_vi wrote:I see that this discussion is going out of topic.
I think that DNC list is a tools. like a knife, then it can be good or bad according with its use.
So I look with interest to this feature in MLS.
Well, more than anything we just need to be careful to keep it on the technical side of things. I think this has been an interesting discussion with both sides of the argument making very valid points. But at this point, I don't know how much more can be said. It is now up to the Employees at Church Headquarters to decide what's right and what's not.
MorettiDP
Member
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil

#32

Post by MorettiDP »

An "Active", "Less active" flag can be interesting too, and could help us on reactivation activities.
RossEvans
Senior Member
Posts: 1345
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

#33

Post by RossEvans »

MorettiDP wrote:An "Active", "Less active" flag can be interesting too, and could help us on reactivation activities.

I wonder about applying that label expressly, although I recognize the usefulness to leaders.

Lacking that, here is what we have done in our ward as a close approximation. Using the four core export files (Membership.csv, HomeTeaching.csv, VisitingTeaching.csv and Organization.csv) we run a SQL query that flags "active" members by the following algorithm: If a family has any member serving as a home or visiting teacher, or in any calling, we treat that family as "active." Not perfect, but close enough to be useful.

There is no inherent reason such logic could not be programmed into MLS. Unfortunately, the logic is too complex to implement within MLS as a custom report with existing functionality.
combblai
New Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:43 am

#34

Post by combblai »

The policy from our stake president is to assign DNCs to a home teacher that is a neighbor and ask them to contact them regularly as such.

On a personal opinion note, when I was EQP (Elders Quorum Pres) I did not ask members if they wanted HT/VT or if the wanted to be contacted by the church. If asked, many will say no but if never asked, most will not make such a request.

For those who do, the first sentence applies.

When I have been asked to HT a DNC, I have attempted to send them a note, thought, message, or church mag article in the mail on a monthly basis if a visit was not an option that month. With some I have paid for a subscription to selected church mags. Church mags can be an excellent tool to warm those who have "cooled" to the gospel message and thus improving the future likelyhood that they will open their door to HT/VT later.
tlrogers
New Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:56 pm
Location: Boise, Idaho, USA

#35

Post by tlrogers »

We found a simple solution to this issue that still allowed us clerks the ability to see the address and phone #... There is an address 2 and a phone 2 section of the membership record. We moved the address and phone # from the first to the second of each. Then we set the defaults to not print the second address and phone on directories.

In this way the DNC no longer have a phone # or address in any printed directrory but anyone with access to view memberships (EQ Pres, HP Group Leader, Bishopric, and clerks) could see the address for periodic (at least annual visits).
tw.lbean
New Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 10:20 pm
Location: Vista, CA, USA

Great idea

#36

Post by tw.lbean »

tlrogers wrote:We found a simple solution to this issue that still allowed us clerks the ability to see the address and phone #... There is an address 2 and a phone 2 section of the membership record. We moved the address and phone # from the first to the second of each. Then we set the defaults to not print the second address and phone on directories.

In this way the DNC no longer have a phone # or address in any printed directrory but anyone with access to view memberships (EQ Pres, HP Group Leader, Bishopric, and clerks) could see the address for periodic (at least annual visits).
I'll have to give that one a try. Outside of actually fixing the bug in MLS, this is the most useable solution I've seen.
RossEvans
Senior Member
Posts: 1345
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

#37

Post by RossEvans »

tw.lbean wrote:I'll have to give that one a try. Outside of actually fixing the bug in MLS, this is the most useable solution I've seen.

There is no "bug" in MLS, as far as I know. Church policy does not recognize any such status as "Do Not Contact," and MLS by design includes no such flag. There are some local clerks and leaders who think this policy should be changed and MLS should be changed accordingly, because local units adopt ad hoc processes to handle such situations, but that is not at all the same thing as a bug.

I still don't quite understand tlrogers' workaround. When he says, "Then we set the defaults to not print the second address and phone on directories," what defaults are those, and what reports are affected?

This may be confusing two very different situations: members who request no contact, and members who request that their contact information be suppressed from published directories.
User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 15153
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Draper, Utah

#38

Post by aebrown »

boomerbubba wrote:There is no "bug" in MLS, as far as I know. Church policy does not recognize any such status as "Do Not Contact," and MLS by design includes no such flag. There are some local clerks and leaders who think this policy should be changed and MLS should be changed accordingly, because local units adopt ad hoc processes to handle such situations, but that is not at all the same thing as a bug.
Well said -- I was going to make the same comment myself, but you said it better than I would have.
boomerbubba wrote: I still don't quite understand tlrogers' workaround. When he says, "Then we set the defaults to not print the second address and phone on directories," what defaults are those, and what reports are affected?.
In the Abbreviated Directory, there is a Customize link in the upper right hand corner. It presents a dialog with several options, among which is "Show second street address."

Also, in the Directory of Members, there is also a Customize link. One of the options there is "Show secondary telephone number and e-mail address (if available)."

I imagine these are what is referred to.
tw.lbean
New Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 10:20 pm
Location: Vista, CA, USA

#39

Post by tw.lbean »

boomerbubba wrote:There is no "bug" in MLS, as far as I know. Church policy does not recognize any such status as "Do Not Contact," and MLS by design includes no such flag. There are some local clerks and leaders who think this policy should be changed and MLS should be changed accordingly, because local units adopt ad hoc processes to handle such situations, but that is not at all the same thing as a bug.

I still don't quite understand tlrogers' workaround. When he says, "Then we set the defaults to not print the second address and phone on directories," what defaults are those, and what reports are affected?

This may be confusing two very different situations: members who request no contact, and members who request that their contact information be suppressed from published directories.
I should have paid more attention to which of the 2 threads this is. Sorry. I made a mistake by not giving context to my comment.

There is a bug in MLS where it fails to handle negative logic correctly for custom member fields when creating custom reports. Short of fixing that bug, this is the best solution I've seen. It doesn't hijack database fields that are part of a member's record.

I could go on about the debate of "official" policy regarding DNCs, but the reality is that DNC lists exist at the local level in many (not all, but many) units. A sufficient number of people have weighed in with opinions that I'm convinced many clerks deal with it - despite DNC not being an officially recognized state or status.

I believe it is a good thing in many ways that church policy does not officially recognize DNC status. However, having members requesting no contact from the church is a reality. Many (most?) clerks do have, and actively maintain, DNC lists.

Ugly things are being done to support DNC lists such as:
[INDENT]
  • Hijacking the preferred name field
  • Hijacking the first name or last name fields
  • Putting all 0's in the phone number
  • ....
[/INDENT]

I've expressed my personal opinions about how to deal with this already and it touched off a significant response about equally divided on what the "best" solution is.

I'll simply recap my opinion by saying that I feel the objective is to save souls. The more tools available, the greater the chance the "right" tool will be available.

EDIT: If this solution is only effective for LUWS then it really doesn't help. I won't have access to look at MLS / LUWS until this evening, so I assumed it was MLS. Sounds like (if I understand correctly) that this is something viable in LUWS only.
User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 15153
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Draper, Utah

#40

Post by aebrown »

tw.lbean wrote:I should have paid more attention to which of the 2 threads this is. Sorry. I made a mistake by not giving context to my comment.

There is a bug in MLS where it fails to handle negative logic correctly for custom member fields when creating custom reports.

Ah, now I understand what you were talking about. For those who are interested in more information regarding the bug in MLS custom reports that use custom member fields, the relevant thread is Custom member fields.
Post Reply

Return to “General Clerk Discussions”