Directory Access Restrictions - limiting one person's access OR changing visibility?

[nathangg]

Is there a way limit one person's access to email addresses and/or phone numbers in the online directory?

Say, for instance, there is a member in your ward that keeps sending out emails to the ward even though they've been asked not to. I know that everyone can go change their visibility settings or remove their email addresses, both of which would negatively impact the use of the directory for other members, but that seems quite cumbersome.

Although limiting someone's access would probably raise some issues to and the potential for hurt feelings. Hmmm.

Anyhow, I guess I'm just thinking out loud (and seeing if there is an answer to my original question).

Oh, how about this: can we change the visibility features to let anyone with leadership in the ward to view email addresses, instead of just the bishopric? I know that this option would allow Elders Quorum Leadership, Relief Society Leadership, and High Priests Group Leadership to email their groups and also let members keep their own information up-to-date.

Thanks~!

[nathangg]

I suppose for now we can add auxiliary leaders' secretaries as website administrators so they can see email addresses and then people can change their privacy settings to "Private - Leadership Only". Hmmm, I'll have to think about that for a bit.

Thanks~!

[aebrown]

Is there a way limit one person's access to email addresses and/or phone numbers in the online directory?

I can see how this could be useful in the situation you are describing, but there is currently no way to place such a restriction on a single person. I believe a bishop could request that someone's LDS Account would be completely disabled in cases of abuse, but that sounds like far too drastic a solution for the problem at hand.

So I think you are limited to counseling with the member and giving direction regarding appropriate use of email addresses.

Oh, how about this: can we change the visibility features to let anyone with leadership in the ward to view email addresses, instead of just the bishopric? I know that this option would allow Elders Quorum Leadership, Relief Society Leadership, and High Priests Group Leadership to email their groups and also let members keep their own information up-to-date.

Are you speaking of email addresses which members have chosen not to be displayed? Those are the only addresses which are currently visible to only the bishopric (and clerks). All other email addresses are already visible to all ward members -- not just the bishopric.

[nathangg]

Are you speaking of email addresses which members have chosen not to be displayed? Those are the only addresses which are currently visible to only the bishopric (and clerks). All other email addresses are already visible to all ward members -- not just the bishopric.

I guess I was thinking of providing a way for members to hide their email addresses from everyone except ward leaders (ward leaders including people on the ward council and their secretaries). This would allow the Elders Quorum secretary to send an email to all the Elders in the ward without having to manage an Elders Quorum email list AND allowing members to still keep their email address private from the general membership of the ward.

I know such a setting doesn't exist right now, but I thought such a setting could provide a little extra granularity. (I'm sorry if I'm not doing a good job of explaining myself )

[russellhltn]

Say, for instance, there is a member in your ward that keeps sending out emails to the ward even though they've been asked not to.

It may seem drastic to some but if they're not following council, locking them out of their account might well be appropriate. I'd let the bishop know that the possibility exists and let him decide.

[nathangg]

It may seem drastic to some but if they're not following council, locking them out of their account might well be appropriate. I'd let the bishop know that the possibility exists and let him decide.

Is there something on the wiki that explains this? I know when I offer this as an option to our Bishop he is going to ask, "what will they be locked out of?" Are they locked out of all these services/sites? Is it easy to get it unlocked?

[russellhltn]

Is there something on the wiki that explains this?

Not that I know of. I don't have an answer to your question, but if someone is not following council then I'm not sure as denying them access to all of those sites is such a bad thing. Hopefully a lockout would yield the desired results and they could be reinstated.

[failproof]

The other thing to keep in mind is that being locked out of these applications may not stop this member from sending further email to ward members.
If you click on someone's email address from the Directory, it doesn't compose/send through the Directory website, it opens a new message in your default email application. Even if you don't have a default email application and have to copy and paste the email address into your webmail site like gmail, hotmail, etc., once you send an email to a ward member, you now have that ward member's email address in you sent items. You don't need the Directory or access to your LDS Account anymore to send another email to that same member(s)...

The only real solution to prevent further emails is to address the issue directly with the sender.

[russellhltn]

The only real solution to prevent further emails is to address the issue directly with the sender.

Depending on how bad the problem is, I suppose you could file complaints with the offender's email provider.

[nathangg]

Thank you for the suggestions.

As it turns out, everyone's email was already downloaded/saved and entered into Constant Contact. Emails were then generated from Constant Contact, so turning off access to the directory at this point would only prevent further downloads.

Our Bishop did talk with the member, but he also sent an email to the ward explaining the situation whilst remaining respectful of private conversations that had taken place with the member.

Anyhow, kind of an awkward situation.

I think for now we're going to just leave it as is.

Thanks~!