Why have a building scheduler?

[Gary_Miller]

We've previously talked about renaming the "building scheduler" to "building coordinator" as well as changing "reservations" to "restrictions".

Since the primary role of the "building Scheduler" is to make reservations/restrictions mostly for recurring activities, such as YMYW nights. Why have any such position?

Why not just place the responsibility as part of the stake administrator duties, one that can not be delegated, just like adding rooms and resources. It serves no purpose having the responsibility at the individual building level since everything can be accomplished right from one central location.

[jdlessley]

[Moderator note: This thread was split from the Calendar help for private events thread because it addresses a new topic. Please follow the Code of Conduct to stay on topic and do not start a new topic in an existing thread; instead start a new thread.]

[russellhltn]

Since the primary role of the "building Scheduler" is to make reservations/restrictions mostly for recurring activities, such as YMYW nights. Why have any such position?

Wards and Stakes can combine the roles if they wish. But besides creating the reservations, building schedulers are 1) The point of contact for dealing with questions about the use of the buildings (or at least the Primary Building Scheduler is). 2) They have the power to change events scheduled for their location. That's a super power that no default admin can do.

One concern I have is how there are so many default admins. Seems ripe for "too many cooks in the kitchen". Especially since the website admin is a default admin. Sure, some units might want to run it that way, but I don't know as all of them do.

[aebrown]

Since the primary role of the "building Scheduler" is to make reservations/restrictions mostly for recurring activities, such as YMYW nights. Why have any such position?

Why not just place the responsibility as part of the stake administrator duties, one that can not be delegated, just like adding rooms and resources. It serves no purpose having the responsibility at the individual building level since everything can be accomplished right from one central location.

As RussellHltn pointed out, making reservations/restrictions is only one role. I wouldn't even call it the primary role, since for the most part (at least in our stake) that is set up once and rarely changes. The much more important role is conflict resolution. In order to function effectively in resolving conflicts, a person needs to know the building well.

My stake happens to be in an area with a very high density LDS population; we have only three buildings in our stake, and I've spent thousands of hours in two of those buildings and many dozen hours in the third one. So I have the needed knowledge, but only because the buildings are close, I've been around a long time, and have been a member of wards that attend two of the buildings.

But there are stakes that have a dozen wards over thousands of square miles and might have 8 or more buildings. Asking a stake admin to know all those buildings well enough to perform any of the tasks of a building scheduler seems like it's asking a lot. If I were a stake admin in such a stake, I would rely heavily on someone in each building to help me know what rooms need to be set up in each building, and a building scheduler would be great at that, and I would feel inadequate for the task of resolving conflicts in a building I visited rarely if ever.

So I really do think the role has merit even if the role and one of its tasks (reservations/restrictions) happen to be renamed. Stakes are welcome to assign multiple roles to the same person if they see fit, or to distribute the responsibility.

[Gary_Miller]

But besides creating the reservations, building schedulers are 1) The point of contact for dealing with questions about the use of the buildings (or at least the Primary Building Scheduler is).

Here we go again adding to the building schedulers roles.

While I could see that a building scheduler once was the point of contact for dealing with questions. Under the new roles this will quickly diminish since they will no longer be the pulse for calendaring, therefor they will not know whats really going on. The individual wards in a building will now become the experts in knowing whats happening in their building.

But besides creating the reservations, building schedulers are 2) They have the power to change events scheduled for their location.

If the calendar software functions as it should then there should be no need for anyone to have to change an event. If there becomes a need then the units meeting in the building should be able to work things out among themselves. The only time I could ever see the need to make any event adjustments would be for a funeral, and since most funerals are held during the day when the building is seldom used there not likely to me many conflicts.

That's a super power that no default admin can do.

I'm not a programmer. However, I know enough about programming to know this would be an easy power to move to a default admin position.

One concern I have is how there are so many default admins. Seems ripe for "too many cooks in the kitchen".

I agree there are to many default admin positions. With the exception that they have over all responsibility I don't see the need for Stake Presidencies or Bishopric to have admin rights. They have much more important things to do.

Especially since the website admin is a default admin. Sure, some units might want to run it that way, but I don't know as all of them do.

With the change from the classic site and the guidelines on unit web sites, I no longer see the need for a ward "Website Administrator" at all. Let alone being a calendar admin.

[Gary_Miller]

The much more important role is conflict resolution.

Like I stated in my previous post. If the calendar software functions as it should then there should be no need for anyone to have to change an event. If there becomes a need then the units meeting in the building should be able to work things out among themselves.

In order to function effectively in resolving conflicts, a person needs to know the building well.

Who knows the building better than those wards who meet in the building.

Some stakes have chosen to have one "Building Scheduler" for all the buildings in the stake. Its impossible for that individual to know the building better than the wards meeting in the building.

If I were a stake admin in such a stake, I would rely heavily on someone in each building to help me know what rooms need to be set up in each building, and a building scheduler would be great at that,

Set up for what?

It been my experience that those individuals responsible for the event does their own setup and take down. If they need media equipment they see the librarian. If they need other types of support they do their own coordinating.

and I would feel inadequate for the task of resolving conflicts in a building I visited rarely if ever.

Already answered.

[Gary_Miller]

If I were a stake admin in such a stake, I would rely heavily on someone in each building to help me know what rooms need to be set up in each building, and a building scheduler would be great at that,

Set up for what?

It been my experience that those individuals responsible for the event does their own setup and take down. If they need media equipment they see the librarian. If they need other types of support they do their own coordinating.

and I would feel inadequate for the task of resolving conflicts in a building I visited rarely if ever.

Already answered.

[aebrown]

Like I stated in my previous post. If the calendar software functions as it should then there should be no need for anyone to have to change an event. If there becomes a need then the units meeting in the building should be able to work things out among themselves.

That's not true; they don't have sufficient permissions to do at least one kind of conflict resolution. If a building is using the Reservations feature, and the wards in that building decide among themselves that a ward should be able to schedule an event on top of a reservation that is for a different ward, only a building scheduler can make that happen. For example, Ward A has the cultural hall on 1st and 3rd Tuesdays and a reservation has been created to enforce that restriction, but Ward B wants to have a particular event on the 1st Tuesday of July that uses the cultural hall. Ward B has no way of creating such an event without the help of a building scheduler.

Who knows the building better than those wards who meet in the building.

I'm not sure what your argument is here; in my stake a building scheduler is always someone who meets in the building, so I completely agree.

Some stakes have chosen to have one "Building Scheduler" for all the buildings in the stake. Its impossible for that individual to know the building better than the wards meeting in the building.

That's not a choice our stake would make.

Set up for what?

It been my experience that those individuals responsible for the event does their own setup and take down. If they need media equipment they see the librarian. If they need other types of support they do their own coordinating.

I should have been clearer. I was talking about selecting standard rooms and adding custom rooms under Settings > Locations > Edit.

[TinMan]

That's not true; they don't have sufficient permissions to do at least one kind of conflict resolution. If a building is using the Reservations feature, and the wards in that building decide among themselves that a ward should be able to schedule an event on top of a reservation that is for a different ward, only a building scheduler can make that happen. For example, Ward A has the cultural hall on 1st and 3rd Tuesdays and a reservation has been created to enforce that restriction, but Ward B wants to have a particular event on the 1st Tuesday of July that uses the cultural hall. Ward B has no way of creating such an event without the help of a building scheduler.

I think the point is: "How does the building scheduler resolve this conflict, and why can't the two wards just work it out, bypassing the scheduler?"

Edit adding: Thinking some more, I think that the building scheduler is needed now because of the fact that people outside the building (i.e. people in other wards in the stake) can schedule the building. If it was just the two wards that meet in the building that could do this, then a scheduler might not be needed.

Under the old system, the building A and B met in pretty much belonged to A and B. If outside Ward C wanted it, they called the old building scheduler who made phone calls to ward A and B to see if anyone was using it. Now Ward C can just go book an event in A and B's building without checking with anyone. All the buildings in the Stake are now a Stake resource. The schedulers serve as traffic cops.

[aebrown]

I think the point is: "How does the building scheduler resolve this conflict, and why can't the two wards just work it out, bypassing the scheduler?"

I understand the point, but my answer stands IF the building is using the Reservations feature. In my scenario, there is simply no way for Ward B to have an event on its calendar that books the cultural hall on the 1st Tuesday of July if there is an existing reservation for Ward A reserving the cultural hall on the 1st Tuesday of each month. A building scheduler is the only person who can adjust the event for Ward B to override the reservation for Ward A (even a stake admin cannot).

Now if you want to imagine a different system that doesn't have building schedulers or where the reservation role is given to different people, then sure, it's conceivable that the wards could "just work it out." But in the current system if the location uses reservations that cannot be done.