Our eastern star chapter has dues of $35 a year. Probably hasn't changed since Moses was in diapers. Yet when someone broaches the idea of raising dues, it's shot down. But when the lodge tries to raise their monthly rent due to rising costs, that also is shot down, and crying poverty.
It's not just the masons. All of the concordant bodies complain about expenses, yet refuse to raise dues to make things better. And it's not like this lodge is filled with sharecroppers scraping by hand to mouth.
$35 dollars is dinner and drinks at Dennys. Seriously? For the privilege of sitting in a meeting arguing about what cookies to bring to the bake sale and 40 minutes of introductions. They can afford it, they just refuse to pay.
A very good morning MW Cameron. I agree with you, I too would be angry and upset at the idea of diminishing the sacredness of Freemasonry. The topic of dues is such a hot button issue. My lodge currently has an annual dues of $100 and I don’t believe it’s enough.
When I became a Freemason the amount of the annual dues played no part of my decision to join the lodge I petitioned. There are 4 lodges within a 20 mile radius that assess varying annual dues. The issue is what’s the right amount. We’ve heard argued here that a brother would be willing to pay more in dues if the education was better, or the meals were better or there were more festive boards. That argument is unrealistic. No amount of money in a lodge’s account will make those things happen. They happen when a brother or group of brothers put in the time and labor to make them happen.
We also know that a building is not what makes Freemasonry sacred. We could certainly meet in a tavern, a park or a garage. The only “Temples” we should be concerning ourselves with is our own Temple and that “Temple not built with hands”. If we’re going to have a physical Temple then we are obligated to maintain it. No one buys a home and then refuses to maintain it.
Is a dollar a day too much to pay for Freemasonry? Although we’re not a church, perhaps we should go to paying a tithe. I observed a popular Brother argue one night that a minimal increase in the SR dues would force him to demit. A few nights later he voted in favor of a dues increase at a lodge he is a member (He is a member of at least 3 lodges). It was at that point I learned how easy it is to manipulate the brethren when it comes to issues of raising dues.
I’m a believer in ownership. The amount a brother cares about something is directly related to the amount of skin he has in the game. So, again, is a dollar a day too much to support our sacred fraternity?
I generally agree with your dollar a day proposal. It seems like those would be sufficient dues for most Lodges, and I believe that it is affordable by most Masons. Those who honestly can't afford it the Lodge can forgive of course.
I too have heard some bad faith objections to dues increases over the years. A sad thing indeed.
From my perspective we've taken our eye off the ball both structurally and operationally. Your statement is the ball: "It asks that we work to improve ourselves and work to improve the Fraternity. "
Working to improve ourselves is something that gets a lot of lip service an not enough hands on action. It would be interesting to put a stopwatch on any of our meetings and then compile the statistics across the Jurisdiction to determine how much time we spend on topics and activities directly aimed at improving ourselves and how much time we spend on other stuff. And I'd go one step further ... let's discount the time we spend telling each other how good we are because we're Masons because we're good because we're Masons ... (lather, rinse, repeat). Yes, positive affirmations are valuable but only as a preamble to more substantive endeavors.
Structurally we're our own worst enemies. How much time and effort do we spend on studying, amending, and enforcing the WMC? Answer: A lot. And how much of our Code can be directly tied to making good men better? Answer: very little, if anything. And what would happen if we stripped the Code down to bare essentials that formalized tax compliance and a few other business controls, specified officer duties, and protected our ritual, and removed just about every instance that causes grown men to stand before the Grand Master and ask "mother may I?" on operational matters for which the judgements of a well qualified Worshipful Master should be trusted? Answer: The Fraternity would be much better off and we'd actually have time to make good men better.
Grand Master, you and I have exchanged thoughts about the state of Masonic education in our Jurisdiction and I think it's fair to say that we both see untapped opportunities. Too often it's an afterthought on Lodge meeting agendas. Too often it focuses on the procedural (ie, floor work or Lodge meeting etiquette) instead of a more challenging curriculum directed at bettering ourselves. The things we call Leadership training are often mislabeled and underlying it all is that I'm not aware that we teach the teachers how to teach.
I must comment on the money issue as well. As Lodge membership demographics shift to an older collection of past masters it's not surprising that there is resistance to "right size" dues. It's a conversation most would prefer to avoid so it's been successfully avoided over the years. So now the avoidance or deferral is a well engrained habit. It has always seemed to work before, so why not now? There's a couple reasons why we're in this stalemate:
1) In my opinion, Grand Lodge has not lead by example. Our membership has declined dramatically in the past decade (decades?), yet the Grand Lodge budget has remained flat or has gradually increased. I'm not saying that there have not been well intentioned efforts to manage the Grand Lodge budget, but the budget is driven by habits that are often packaged in the more pleasant term, tradition. I can't think of another sustainable organization that has experienced membership (customer) decline as significant as ours that hasn't dramatically changed its business model. I don't know what the new business model should look like, but I feel strongly that this issue needs to be on the table.
2) We're not properly informing the membership about our Lodge's business model. How many Treasurer reports are only a sentence or two saying that there's money in the checking account? How many Lodges present a multi-year projection of income, expenses, and liquidity, without which there isn't time to develop solutions to looming issues? And how many times do we seek increases with empty or irrelevant slogans like, "When my grandfather was a Mason the dues used to equal two weeks pay"? (By the way, your grandfather paid a lot less than we pay for housing, college tuition, and healthcare, he got a pension and he qualified for Social Security earlier than we will).
3) We operate under the illusion that our current dues are an appropriate reflection of market value. When I was Master of my Lodge our dues were $30 because that's what we had always done. I asked a committee of three recently initiated EAs to assess the market value of a membership of our Lodge, and they proposed $120. Thankfully the membership recognized that the incoming Masons understood current value better than many of the Past Masters did.
4) The Life Membership program has done significant damage to our Lodges. They are laughably under-priced and have allowed a large portion of our members to completely side-step the ongoing responsibility of paying dues. And they were marketed inappropriately. When I bought mine, which I now regret, a very senior and accomplished Brother told me that if I buy a life membership I'll never have to pay dues again. So I told my wife and she thought sounded great. I do not take lightly the disruption of domestic peace and harmony that our Brothers' households will suffer if we terminated the Life Membership fund, returned the money, and required dues from all members. But economically it's the obvious thing to do.
5) We're hanging on to buildings with emotional reasoning while ignoring market realities. A Lodge in my District went through significant grief with its more tenured membership to sell its building a few years back. Their cash flow wasn't sufficient to maintain it while the market value of the land had skyrocketed. Eventually they sold it and now they have enough money to keep the Lodge in business well into the next Ice Age and the when the doors to the Lodge room (ie, where the work gets done) are closed they're in a much nicer room than they had in the old place.
We can't solve problems if they're not put on the table. And the solutions can't look like the way we've always done things, that what's created the current situation.
Grand Master, I apologize if I've been a little too verbose with my reaction. Thank you for providing an opportunity to share my views.
I do have to bring up taxes and our dues. Just like taxes, there is nothing stopping anyone from paying more than what is expected. I agree our dues across a lot of the lodges should be higher, but for those lamenting low dues, do you actually write a bigger check every year (rhetorical)?
And finally, yes, wholeheartedly agree that the wmc is a bloated pile of shite. Much like government, if you keep punting responsibilities to the overlords you eventually run out of them yourselves. The WM of the lodge should be the final arbiter of decisions within the lodge.
>>I agree our dues across a lot of the lodges should be higher, but for those lamenting >>low dues, do you actually write a bigger check every year (rhetorical)?
Yes. For at least one of the Lodges I belong to, and one of the other Masonic bodies.
I say this to point out to our Lodges that they can ask for moneys above and beyond their dues, and at least one of my Lodges has a pretty darn good percentage of Brothers who do kick in more. I get a dues statement that lists my dues owed, and then a request for moneys above and beyond those dues.
Thank you VW. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to share these thoughts. I'd like to add a few comments of my own:
>>Working to improve ourselves is something that gets a lot of lip service an not enough >>hands on action. It would be interesting to put a stopwatch on any of our meetings and then >>compile the statistics across the Jurisdiction to determine how much time we spend on >>topics and activities directly aimed at improving ourselves and how much time we spend on >>other stuff.
I agree, 100%. In most of our Lodges, the 'other stuff' makes up the vast majority of time spent in meetings. The actual topics aimed at improving ourselves, at doing Freemasonry, are almost an afterthought.
This is not however universal. There are Lodges that put education and similar things front and center and do them well. It is not surprising that the Lodges that do this tend to be a lot more successful than those that don't.
>>How much time and effort do we spend on studying, amending, and enforcing the WMC? >>Answer: A lot. And how much of our Code can be directly tied to making good men better? >>Answer: very little, if anything. And what would happen if we stripped the Code down to bare >>essentials that formalized tax compliance and a few other business controls, specified >>officer duties, and protected our ritual, and removed just about every instance that causes >>grown men to stand before the Grand Master and ask "mother may I?"
I also do not disagree. Our Masonic Code is too long, too complex, and too encompassing. It grows over time, yet I imagine it never shrinks. I think that what often causes this is that something goes awry somewhere. Then it is thought that the Code needs to address that specific situation, so a new provision is added, when it would have just been better to deal with whatever it was under existing authority. After all, the authority is there, even if the Code was a single page, for power over the Fraternity is invested in the GM. We don't need to keep growing our list of rules.
We would do very well to shorten, simplify, and constrain our Masonic Code. I hope that someday we will see Lodges introducing resolutions to do just that.
>>Our membership has declined dramatically in the past decade (decades?), yet the Grand >>Lodge budget has remained flat or has gradually increased. I'm not saying that there have >>not been well intentioned efforts to manage the Grand Lodge budget, but the budget is >>driven by habits that are often packaged in the more pleasant term, tradition.
I do not know what the budgets were like in the years before I became involved at the Grand Lodge level, but I presume you are correct, that they have remained largely flat, while our membership has dramatically decreased.
I do however think that there is more to this than simply tradition. I think that our world is growing ever more complex, and at the same time, Freemasonry is experiencing less influence. I think that the legal and regulatory regimes that we are operating under today are much more complicated, and much less forgiving than they were in the past. I think that continuing to operate legally and within regulatory frameworks today requires much more effort than it did decades ago. What I'm saying is that while a Grand Lodge employee may not be for example, processing as many requests from Masons, I think that they are spending a lot more time working on compliance with governmental regulations.
I also think that in the past, if errors were made by the Fraternity, they were easily forgiven in the past. Say we had an issue with the Department of Revenue. Well, it was probably quite easily fixed when virtually every Legislator was a Freemason. Say a Lodge had difficulty with the government while trying to make major changes with its building. Well, maybe that difficulty was easily swept away when the Masonic President of the United States was made aware of it. This might sound far fetched, but alas, our Brothers on the east side of the State know about that.
My point is that I think that we spend a great deal of effort (and effort translates to dollars) on governmental compliance now that we didn't have to spend back when we were much larger in terms of membership.
I have though, like you, spent time thinking about how we do business. The Grand Lodge currently operates with a paid staff. It could, conceivably operate with a volunteer staff. But, I don't think that would work. In fact, I think we have a great example of it not working. The Scottish Rite operates with paid staff, while the York Rite (at least here) operates with a volunteer staff. If we look at the current state of these two organizations, I think we can clearly see the benefit of a professional staff.
None of this is to indicate disagreement with your basic premise that we should always consider how we are doing business, rather it is to simply show that there are things that I think we have to consider beyond simple membership numbers.
>>How many Treasurer reports are only a sentence or two saying that there's money in the >>checking account? How many Lodges present a multi-year projection of income, expenses, >>and liquidity, without which there isn't time to develop solutions to looming issues?
The office of Lodge Treasurer, done correctly is a complex job that requires a certain skill set. I think that oftentimes when we do get a great Treasurer, we don't realize how much work goes into what he does, and we tend to devalue the position. This would be a disincentive to the Treasurer wanting to continue in that post.
Plus, if our Treasurer does warn a Lodge, and the Lodge ignores those warnings, well that is going to be extremely disheartening to him, and again, a disincentive to his continuance. We discussed this on Rummer and Grapes this evening actually.
>>When I was Master of my Lodge our dues were $30 because that's what we had always >>done.
Inflation continues, each and every day. Ensuring that it will cost more to operate next year than it cost this year. Yet most Lodges sleep for years and years, only waking up to have a conversation about dues every decade or so.
Some Lodges have addressed this problem by putting inflationary elevators in their dues structure. I think that they will find much more success in the future, and hopefully these ideas will be adopted by more Lodges.
>>The Life Membership program has done significant damage to our Lodges. They are >>laughably under-priced and have allowed a large portion of our members to completely side->>step the ongoing responsibility of paying dues.
Agreed. 100%
An equally harmful error was the exemption of 50 year members from dues.
>>We're hanging on to buildings with emotional reasoning while ignoring market realities.
Also agreed 100%.
Lodges are destroying themselves every day by trying to hold on to buildings that they can not afford. Those same Lodges would be able to thrive without the weight around their necks.
Arguably, from the oldest known Masonic Manuscripts ever, titled ‘Carta di Bologna,’ 1248: I. Oath of the Aforesaid Masters …“And the Financial Auditors are required to investigate and to sanction this in the assembly of the society, unless prevented by a decision of the entire council of the Society, or by its majority, or for just cause. And if I, as an officer, want to impose a levy for the expenses of the society, I will explain first the reason for it to the council, and it shall be imposed as the council decides unanimously or by majority.”
At the time of this era, it was the Steward’s job to insure the finances and even fines. Currently, every lodge, through the overseeing of the secretary. should through its hall board be able to raise the monthly dues to afford monthly rent, maintenance, and improvements. Other organization have financial advisors, perhaps this type of role could come from our state lodge level to assists and educate for growth and continuation of our lodges?
Thinking objectively, by adding costs, perhaps add an additional incentive, separate from regular lodge meetings, such as having an educational section. Since the pandemic shut downs, many lodges I believe have evolved a bit with zoom and other online discussions and presentations. A simple idea would be to have a paid educator/lecturer record a video presentation and share it to these affiliated lodges? For the brothers on a fixed income, I could see a valid argument to have fees amended, based on income. After all we are the poor knights.
>>For the brothers on a fixed income, I could see a valid argument to have fees amended, >>based on income.
I agree. In my view, Lodge dues should be quite high. But at the same time, Lodges should be very willing to be forgiving of dues from those who truly can not afford to pay them.
The dues of my home lodge are set up that it is $50 plus the Grand Lodge of Ohio per capita. This currently makes it about $67 a year. My lodge has strong investments and we have income from renting our building, so we aren't hurting at the moment. However, in Ohio only Master Masons pay dues. While that's fine when a candidate buckles down to get through their proficiency in a timely manner, but some take a year or more due to work and family issues. I personally think in these situations, even candidates should pay some level of dues. Their degree fees were never intended to replace dues. From another angle, I do think that if dues were raised in general we could cover the cost of some activities instead of brothers paying out of pocket for each individual thing.
Here in Washington as well, only Master Masons pay dues. I agree, that is a policy that probably doesn't serve us well. We explicitly tell Entered Apprentices that they are Masons, it's right there in our ritual, so it only makes sense to me that they and FC's pay dues as well.
The biggest harm to Freemasonry is Freemasons themselves. Dues and the ability to fund lodges is but one of the issues that Freemasonry faces. In my short time as a Freemason I have seen brothers gawk at even the slightest change that would be good for the lodge and ultimately good for Freemasonry. Freemasons and Freemasonry needs to understand change is necessary and be willing to change in a more timely manner than in the past.
Freemasonry is needed now more than ever for men, but most men under the age of 50 aren’t looking for an institution that advertises pot-luck dinners as its form of socialization. Oh, and then don’t have a dinner, and watch how many of the old guard decide not to show.
Freemasonry needs to focus on Freemasonry, especially those sacred mysteries that sets us apart and makes us unique. Men want to be part of something unique, not dull and boring. However, again the biggest harm to our institution is those from within. If we don’t make timely changes, and understand things like simple economics (that inflation also affects Freemasonry), we will continue to degrade and loose lodges.
In Freemasonry we say we meet “On the Level”, but we do so much to segregate ourselves within - with titles, roles and positions etc. This IMO just adds to the problems stated above and allows some brothers to justify their positions on topics whether good or bad.
Finally, comments were made about GL and I have to agree with most, as I still don’t understand its total purpose beyond a basic framework of oversight, which it seems to struggle with.
Masons, by human nature, follow the path of least resistance. I have almost a dozen lodges within an hours drive of my house. Now, I understand that might be a bit unique for a lot of the state, especially in the more remote regions.
But if my lodge, for example, decided to do the right thing and raise dues commensurate with it's expenses, you could see either a flood of new life members (if you don't raise those costs either) or an exodus to other cheaper lodges. And the brothers in those other lodges getting all that new blood would rejoice.
As an example, one of the lodges in the area charges 2x the cost of a life membership. There is nothing stopping a brother (and one I know even talked about it) getting a life membership in his home lodge, transferring it to the 2x charged lodge, then getting a new life membership at his old one.
I vehemently oppose GL from stepping in and telling lodges how much they should charge for dues. But in my examples, lodges within an area/district need to uniformly decide to raise their dues together, or you could see dramatic shifts in lodge membership rolls.
While it makes very good sense, I'm not at all sure that your concern holds water when it comes to annual dues paying members. Much like your area, North Seattle has a dozen Lodges, all perhaps within 10 minutes of each other.
I don't know the dues levels of all dozen of them, but I do know the dues of three. $65, $300, $450 are the three. The Lodge at $65 does not noticeably have any more members than the other two.
I do however think that this does hold true with Life Memberships as you mention. I've heard of it happening, and seen it happen. It's a terrible cheat when done for financial gain.
Ultimately though, I think your argument is right, Lodges in an area would do well to cooperate on dues levels.
Our eastern star chapter has dues of $35 a year. Probably hasn't changed since Moses was in diapers. Yet when someone broaches the idea of raising dues, it's shot down. But when the lodge tries to raise their monthly rent due to rising costs, that also is shot down, and crying poverty.
It's not just the masons. All of the concordant bodies complain about expenses, yet refuse to raise dues to make things better. And it's not like this lodge is filled with sharecroppers scraping by hand to mouth.
$35 dollars is dinner and drinks at Dennys. Seriously? For the privilege of sitting in a meeting arguing about what cookies to bring to the bake sale and 40 minutes of introductions. They can afford it, they just refuse to pay.
So, it's not just the lodge.
Thank you
A very good morning MW Cameron. I agree with you, I too would be angry and upset at the idea of diminishing the sacredness of Freemasonry. The topic of dues is such a hot button issue. My lodge currently has an annual dues of $100 and I don’t believe it’s enough.
When I became a Freemason the amount of the annual dues played no part of my decision to join the lodge I petitioned. There are 4 lodges within a 20 mile radius that assess varying annual dues. The issue is what’s the right amount. We’ve heard argued here that a brother would be willing to pay more in dues if the education was better, or the meals were better or there were more festive boards. That argument is unrealistic. No amount of money in a lodge’s account will make those things happen. They happen when a brother or group of brothers put in the time and labor to make them happen.
We also know that a building is not what makes Freemasonry sacred. We could certainly meet in a tavern, a park or a garage. The only “Temples” we should be concerning ourselves with is our own Temple and that “Temple not built with hands”. If we’re going to have a physical Temple then we are obligated to maintain it. No one buys a home and then refuses to maintain it.
Is a dollar a day too much to pay for Freemasonry? Although we’re not a church, perhaps we should go to paying a tithe. I observed a popular Brother argue one night that a minimal increase in the SR dues would force him to demit. A few nights later he voted in favor of a dues increase at a lodge he is a member (He is a member of at least 3 lodges). It was at that point I learned how easy it is to manipulate the brethren when it comes to issues of raising dues.
I’m a believer in ownership. The amount a brother cares about something is directly related to the amount of skin he has in the game. So, again, is a dollar a day too much to support our sacred fraternity?
I generally agree with your dollar a day proposal. It seems like those would be sufficient dues for most Lodges, and I believe that it is affordable by most Masons. Those who honestly can't afford it the Lodge can forgive of course.
I too have heard some bad faith objections to dues increases over the years. A sad thing indeed.
Grand Master, Well said!
From my perspective we've taken our eye off the ball both structurally and operationally. Your statement is the ball: "It asks that we work to improve ourselves and work to improve the Fraternity. "
Working to improve ourselves is something that gets a lot of lip service an not enough hands on action. It would be interesting to put a stopwatch on any of our meetings and then compile the statistics across the Jurisdiction to determine how much time we spend on topics and activities directly aimed at improving ourselves and how much time we spend on other stuff. And I'd go one step further ... let's discount the time we spend telling each other how good we are because we're Masons because we're good because we're Masons ... (lather, rinse, repeat). Yes, positive affirmations are valuable but only as a preamble to more substantive endeavors.
Structurally we're our own worst enemies. How much time and effort do we spend on studying, amending, and enforcing the WMC? Answer: A lot. And how much of our Code can be directly tied to making good men better? Answer: very little, if anything. And what would happen if we stripped the Code down to bare essentials that formalized tax compliance and a few other business controls, specified officer duties, and protected our ritual, and removed just about every instance that causes grown men to stand before the Grand Master and ask "mother may I?" on operational matters for which the judgements of a well qualified Worshipful Master should be trusted? Answer: The Fraternity would be much better off and we'd actually have time to make good men better.
Grand Master, you and I have exchanged thoughts about the state of Masonic education in our Jurisdiction and I think it's fair to say that we both see untapped opportunities. Too often it's an afterthought on Lodge meeting agendas. Too often it focuses on the procedural (ie, floor work or Lodge meeting etiquette) instead of a more challenging curriculum directed at bettering ourselves. The things we call Leadership training are often mislabeled and underlying it all is that I'm not aware that we teach the teachers how to teach.
I must comment on the money issue as well. As Lodge membership demographics shift to an older collection of past masters it's not surprising that there is resistance to "right size" dues. It's a conversation most would prefer to avoid so it's been successfully avoided over the years. So now the avoidance or deferral is a well engrained habit. It has always seemed to work before, so why not now? There's a couple reasons why we're in this stalemate:
1) In my opinion, Grand Lodge has not lead by example. Our membership has declined dramatically in the past decade (decades?), yet the Grand Lodge budget has remained flat or has gradually increased. I'm not saying that there have not been well intentioned efforts to manage the Grand Lodge budget, but the budget is driven by habits that are often packaged in the more pleasant term, tradition. I can't think of another sustainable organization that has experienced membership (customer) decline as significant as ours that hasn't dramatically changed its business model. I don't know what the new business model should look like, but I feel strongly that this issue needs to be on the table.
2) We're not properly informing the membership about our Lodge's business model. How many Treasurer reports are only a sentence or two saying that there's money in the checking account? How many Lodges present a multi-year projection of income, expenses, and liquidity, without which there isn't time to develop solutions to looming issues? And how many times do we seek increases with empty or irrelevant slogans like, "When my grandfather was a Mason the dues used to equal two weeks pay"? (By the way, your grandfather paid a lot less than we pay for housing, college tuition, and healthcare, he got a pension and he qualified for Social Security earlier than we will).
3) We operate under the illusion that our current dues are an appropriate reflection of market value. When I was Master of my Lodge our dues were $30 because that's what we had always done. I asked a committee of three recently initiated EAs to assess the market value of a membership of our Lodge, and they proposed $120. Thankfully the membership recognized that the incoming Masons understood current value better than many of the Past Masters did.
4) The Life Membership program has done significant damage to our Lodges. They are laughably under-priced and have allowed a large portion of our members to completely side-step the ongoing responsibility of paying dues. And they were marketed inappropriately. When I bought mine, which I now regret, a very senior and accomplished Brother told me that if I buy a life membership I'll never have to pay dues again. So I told my wife and she thought sounded great. I do not take lightly the disruption of domestic peace and harmony that our Brothers' households will suffer if we terminated the Life Membership fund, returned the money, and required dues from all members. But economically it's the obvious thing to do.
5) We're hanging on to buildings with emotional reasoning while ignoring market realities. A Lodge in my District went through significant grief with its more tenured membership to sell its building a few years back. Their cash flow wasn't sufficient to maintain it while the market value of the land had skyrocketed. Eventually they sold it and now they have enough money to keep the Lodge in business well into the next Ice Age and the when the doors to the Lodge room (ie, where the work gets done) are closed they're in a much nicer room than they had in the old place.
We can't solve problems if they're not put on the table. And the solutions can't look like the way we've always done things, that what's created the current situation.
Grand Master, I apologize if I've been a little too verbose with my reaction. Thank you for providing an opportunity to share my views.
Well said, a lot of good arguments brought up.
I do have to bring up taxes and our dues. Just like taxes, there is nothing stopping anyone from paying more than what is expected. I agree our dues across a lot of the lodges should be higher, but for those lamenting low dues, do you actually write a bigger check every year (rhetorical)?
And finally, yes, wholeheartedly agree that the wmc is a bloated pile of shite. Much like government, if you keep punting responsibilities to the overlords you eventually run out of them yourselves. The WM of the lodge should be the final arbiter of decisions within the lodge.
>>I agree our dues across a lot of the lodges should be higher, but for those lamenting >>low dues, do you actually write a bigger check every year (rhetorical)?
Yes. For at least one of the Lodges I belong to, and one of the other Masonic bodies.
I say this to point out to our Lodges that they can ask for moneys above and beyond their dues, and at least one of my Lodges has a pretty darn good percentage of Brothers who do kick in more. I get a dues statement that lists my dues owed, and then a request for moneys above and beyond those dues.
It works. Lodges should try it.
Thank you VW. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to share these thoughts. I'd like to add a few comments of my own:
>>Working to improve ourselves is something that gets a lot of lip service an not enough >>hands on action. It would be interesting to put a stopwatch on any of our meetings and then >>compile the statistics across the Jurisdiction to determine how much time we spend on >>topics and activities directly aimed at improving ourselves and how much time we spend on >>other stuff.
I agree, 100%. In most of our Lodges, the 'other stuff' makes up the vast majority of time spent in meetings. The actual topics aimed at improving ourselves, at doing Freemasonry, are almost an afterthought.
This is not however universal. There are Lodges that put education and similar things front and center and do them well. It is not surprising that the Lodges that do this tend to be a lot more successful than those that don't.
>>How much time and effort do we spend on studying, amending, and enforcing the WMC? >>Answer: A lot. And how much of our Code can be directly tied to making good men better? >>Answer: very little, if anything. And what would happen if we stripped the Code down to bare >>essentials that formalized tax compliance and a few other business controls, specified >>officer duties, and protected our ritual, and removed just about every instance that causes >>grown men to stand before the Grand Master and ask "mother may I?"
I also do not disagree. Our Masonic Code is too long, too complex, and too encompassing. It grows over time, yet I imagine it never shrinks. I think that what often causes this is that something goes awry somewhere. Then it is thought that the Code needs to address that specific situation, so a new provision is added, when it would have just been better to deal with whatever it was under existing authority. After all, the authority is there, even if the Code was a single page, for power over the Fraternity is invested in the GM. We don't need to keep growing our list of rules.
We would do very well to shorten, simplify, and constrain our Masonic Code. I hope that someday we will see Lodges introducing resolutions to do just that.
>>Our membership has declined dramatically in the past decade (decades?), yet the Grand >>Lodge budget has remained flat or has gradually increased. I'm not saying that there have >>not been well intentioned efforts to manage the Grand Lodge budget, but the budget is >>driven by habits that are often packaged in the more pleasant term, tradition.
I do not know what the budgets were like in the years before I became involved at the Grand Lodge level, but I presume you are correct, that they have remained largely flat, while our membership has dramatically decreased.
I do however think that there is more to this than simply tradition. I think that our world is growing ever more complex, and at the same time, Freemasonry is experiencing less influence. I think that the legal and regulatory regimes that we are operating under today are much more complicated, and much less forgiving than they were in the past. I think that continuing to operate legally and within regulatory frameworks today requires much more effort than it did decades ago. What I'm saying is that while a Grand Lodge employee may not be for example, processing as many requests from Masons, I think that they are spending a lot more time working on compliance with governmental regulations.
I also think that in the past, if errors were made by the Fraternity, they were easily forgiven in the past. Say we had an issue with the Department of Revenue. Well, it was probably quite easily fixed when virtually every Legislator was a Freemason. Say a Lodge had difficulty with the government while trying to make major changes with its building. Well, maybe that difficulty was easily swept away when the Masonic President of the United States was made aware of it. This might sound far fetched, but alas, our Brothers on the east side of the State know about that.
My point is that I think that we spend a great deal of effort (and effort translates to dollars) on governmental compliance now that we didn't have to spend back when we were much larger in terms of membership.
I have though, like you, spent time thinking about how we do business. The Grand Lodge currently operates with a paid staff. It could, conceivably operate with a volunteer staff. But, I don't think that would work. In fact, I think we have a great example of it not working. The Scottish Rite operates with paid staff, while the York Rite (at least here) operates with a volunteer staff. If we look at the current state of these two organizations, I think we can clearly see the benefit of a professional staff.
None of this is to indicate disagreement with your basic premise that we should always consider how we are doing business, rather it is to simply show that there are things that I think we have to consider beyond simple membership numbers.
>>How many Treasurer reports are only a sentence or two saying that there's money in the >>checking account? How many Lodges present a multi-year projection of income, expenses, >>and liquidity, without which there isn't time to develop solutions to looming issues?
The office of Lodge Treasurer, done correctly is a complex job that requires a certain skill set. I think that oftentimes when we do get a great Treasurer, we don't realize how much work goes into what he does, and we tend to devalue the position. This would be a disincentive to the Treasurer wanting to continue in that post.
Plus, if our Treasurer does warn a Lodge, and the Lodge ignores those warnings, well that is going to be extremely disheartening to him, and again, a disincentive to his continuance. We discussed this on Rummer and Grapes this evening actually.
>>When I was Master of my Lodge our dues were $30 because that's what we had always >>done.
Inflation continues, each and every day. Ensuring that it will cost more to operate next year than it cost this year. Yet most Lodges sleep for years and years, only waking up to have a conversation about dues every decade or so.
Some Lodges have addressed this problem by putting inflationary elevators in their dues structure. I think that they will find much more success in the future, and hopefully these ideas will be adopted by more Lodges.
>>The Life Membership program has done significant damage to our Lodges. They are >>laughably under-priced and have allowed a large portion of our members to completely side->>step the ongoing responsibility of paying dues.
Agreed. 100%
An equally harmful error was the exemption of 50 year members from dues.
>>We're hanging on to buildings with emotional reasoning while ignoring market realities.
Also agreed 100%.
Lodges are destroying themselves every day by trying to hold on to buildings that they can not afford. Those same Lodges would be able to thrive without the weight around their necks.
100 percent agree!
Arguably, from the oldest known Masonic Manuscripts ever, titled ‘Carta di Bologna,’ 1248: I. Oath of the Aforesaid Masters …“And the Financial Auditors are required to investigate and to sanction this in the assembly of the society, unless prevented by a decision of the entire council of the Society, or by its majority, or for just cause. And if I, as an officer, want to impose a levy for the expenses of the society, I will explain first the reason for it to the council, and it shall be imposed as the council decides unanimously or by majority.”
At the time of this era, it was the Steward’s job to insure the finances and even fines. Currently, every lodge, through the overseeing of the secretary. should through its hall board be able to raise the monthly dues to afford monthly rent, maintenance, and improvements. Other organization have financial advisors, perhaps this type of role could come from our state lodge level to assists and educate for growth and continuation of our lodges?
Thinking objectively, by adding costs, perhaps add an additional incentive, separate from regular lodge meetings, such as having an educational section. Since the pandemic shut downs, many lodges I believe have evolved a bit with zoom and other online discussions and presentations. A simple idea would be to have a paid educator/lecturer record a video presentation and share it to these affiliated lodges? For the brothers on a fixed income, I could see a valid argument to have fees amended, based on income. After all we are the poor knights.
>>For the brothers on a fixed income, I could see a valid argument to have fees amended, >>based on income.
I agree. In my view, Lodge dues should be quite high. But at the same time, Lodges should be very willing to be forgiving of dues from those who truly can not afford to pay them.
The dues of my home lodge are set up that it is $50 plus the Grand Lodge of Ohio per capita. This currently makes it about $67 a year. My lodge has strong investments and we have income from renting our building, so we aren't hurting at the moment. However, in Ohio only Master Masons pay dues. While that's fine when a candidate buckles down to get through their proficiency in a timely manner, but some take a year or more due to work and family issues. I personally think in these situations, even candidates should pay some level of dues. Their degree fees were never intended to replace dues. From another angle, I do think that if dues were raised in general we could cover the cost of some activities instead of brothers paying out of pocket for each individual thing.
Here in Washington as well, only Master Masons pay dues. I agree, that is a policy that probably doesn't serve us well. We explicitly tell Entered Apprentices that they are Masons, it's right there in our ritual, so it only makes sense to me that they and FC's pay dues as well.
The biggest harm to Freemasonry is Freemasons themselves. Dues and the ability to fund lodges is but one of the issues that Freemasonry faces. In my short time as a Freemason I have seen brothers gawk at even the slightest change that would be good for the lodge and ultimately good for Freemasonry. Freemasons and Freemasonry needs to understand change is necessary and be willing to change in a more timely manner than in the past.
Freemasonry is needed now more than ever for men, but most men under the age of 50 aren’t looking for an institution that advertises pot-luck dinners as its form of socialization. Oh, and then don’t have a dinner, and watch how many of the old guard decide not to show.
Freemasonry needs to focus on Freemasonry, especially those sacred mysteries that sets us apart and makes us unique. Men want to be part of something unique, not dull and boring. However, again the biggest harm to our institution is those from within. If we don’t make timely changes, and understand things like simple economics (that inflation also affects Freemasonry), we will continue to degrade and loose lodges.
In Freemasonry we say we meet “On the Level”, but we do so much to segregate ourselves within - with titles, roles and positions etc. This IMO just adds to the problems stated above and allows some brothers to justify their positions on topics whether good or bad.
Finally, comments were made about GL and I have to agree with most, as I still don’t understand its total purpose beyond a basic framework of oversight, which it seems to struggle with.
One other aspect I just thought of...
Masons, by human nature, follow the path of least resistance. I have almost a dozen lodges within an hours drive of my house. Now, I understand that might be a bit unique for a lot of the state, especially in the more remote regions.
But if my lodge, for example, decided to do the right thing and raise dues commensurate with it's expenses, you could see either a flood of new life members (if you don't raise those costs either) or an exodus to other cheaper lodges. And the brothers in those other lodges getting all that new blood would rejoice.
As an example, one of the lodges in the area charges 2x the cost of a life membership. There is nothing stopping a brother (and one I know even talked about it) getting a life membership in his home lodge, transferring it to the 2x charged lodge, then getting a new life membership at his old one.
I vehemently oppose GL from stepping in and telling lodges how much they should charge for dues. But in my examples, lodges within an area/district need to uniformly decide to raise their dues together, or you could see dramatic shifts in lodge membership rolls.
While it makes very good sense, I'm not at all sure that your concern holds water when it comes to annual dues paying members. Much like your area, North Seattle has a dozen Lodges, all perhaps within 10 minutes of each other.
I don't know the dues levels of all dozen of them, but I do know the dues of three. $65, $300, $450 are the three. The Lodge at $65 does not noticeably have any more members than the other two.
I do however think that this does hold true with Life Memberships as you mention. I've heard of it happening, and seen it happen. It's a terrible cheat when done for financial gain.
Ultimately though, I think your argument is right, Lodges in an area would do well to cooperate on dues levels.