This makes me think of a local lodge that has a huge warchest, and and $20 annual dues combined with free everything at lodge as their main draw. Their membership is small so they tend to vote themselves free lunch and avoid paying real dues (it's their money) which is effectively a vote by the membership to gradually spend down the inheritance given to them by previous generations.
When a Masonic appeal comes up for example about Puerto Rico, they quibble over whether $100 donation from the lodge is too rich, when in fact they wouldn't miss 5x the amount.
The money problems may be secondary though. In the example in this post and also the lodge I know, we're describing sorta zombie lodges which are dead (but not yet) and have no animating purpose. It's hard for them to expend funds with any real wisdom or purpose if they don't .... have a purpose. This loss seems to predate consolidation by a number of years.
Your term 'zombie lodge' is I think entirely fitting, and one I have used myself. I imagine that most active Masons have encountered zombie Lodges, and they are sad to behold.
One Mason whom I respect a great deal has suggested to me that our Grand Lodges develop a process whereby such Lodges could be put into a form of 'receivership.' Where they would still be allowed to operate, but would be given assistance and required to meet certain benchmarks in order to maintain their Charter. His theory is that Lodges must meet certain standards in order to receive a Charter in the first place, if those standards can no longer be met by a Lodge, drastic steps should be taken.
Another option of course is to pull the Charters of such Lodges.
There was in my area a zombie Lodge, operating as such for about ten years. What I found most distressing about it was the fact that they still received petitions from time to time. A man would petition, receive the Degrees, and then be promptly driven away from Masonry because the Lodge experience was so very bad. To my memory, not a single man that Lodge brought in over those ten years remained an active Mason. But, had those same men joined another area Lodge, they might still be active. That is a real world negative consequence our Fraternity faces due to the fact that we allow zombie Lodges to continue functioning.
The "receivership" model is interesting. There are some GLs I'm familiar with that have a "health scoring" process for lodges so that an internal GL committee can know across a state who is in trouble. I'm over-simplifying, but it's something like,
- If you raised a master mason last year you get a point
- If you have fewer than 25% NPDs you get a point
- If you booked a social event you get a point
And then "healthy" is defined as a certain number of points or more.
Respectfully, I think there are a number of such models which could work. I wouldn't stand and argue for or against health scoring, receivership, or any kind of idea. Where I find things have typically been lacking is "bringing consequences" and the political aspect. No matter the system adopted, there's some point where real consequences start to mount for the lodge. Typically these consequences are some form of "loss of autonomy" (up to and including forced consolidation).
It's very very very hard for most leadership (as far as I've witnessed) to force this issue because masonic lodges are fiercely independent, and because our institution places such an emphasis on maintaining harmony. This is a tough problem: because fixing big issues requires strategic, careful, thoughtful, empathetic *disagreement* and in some cases *disharmony*. Things can't stay the same because we know where that goes. Navigating that (let's face it) intentional disharmony is a very tricky leadership business. We want to think that we can get everyone's hearts and minds aligned but ultimately that tends not to be the case. (We should still try, just not place consensus as a gating criteria)
I think you are certainly correct to point out the 'political will' that would be necessary if such a model were to work. Tough decisions would be needed to be made, and as you say, consequences enforced. It would not be an easy thing for leadership to do.
lot of empathy for leadership here. It's one thing to charge around like a bull in a china shop shouting "this thing needs to happen", quite another to put yourself into the shoes and ask, "How would I handle this?" I don't know.
Excellent, MW. This might be worth reposting annually.
I’m working on my first budget. My goals include protecting our capital and being much more deliberate with our operating income.
Motions to spend funds not in the budget will be entertained *after* the Brother has worked with our Finance committee to identify what ought to be cut, to pay for the motion. That or pass the hat.
I know that all Lodges should have a well thought out and planned out annual budget, but a great many in this Jurisdiction do not. I think that by creating one for your Lodge, you are certainly on a winning track.
I've watched Lodges that do not have strong budgeting spend an inordinate amount of time on very small and ultimately meaningless expenditures, while Lodges with a strong tradition of budgeting can take care of the 'bills' in a matter of seconds.
I remember one of the first things I was ever told when I became a Mason was that 'no one ever joined Freemasonry to pay the bills' and I've tried to never forget that lesson. Lodges that take far too much time doing business at Stated Meetings will see a disengaged membership, because it is just not what Masons want to spend their time doing. A proper budget speeds all of that up, freeing up Stated Meeting time for good fellowship and great education. That time is what brings men back to Lodge.
As a brand new treasurer, I want to ensure the management of our monies is simple, streamlined, and consistently handled. Having a proper budget and an active Finance Committee (required by code!) Will make this work much smoother.
The longer term problem is that the master gets to make his budget, and each year we can have some one ill suited to handle that task. It's my hope that we create a culture where this will become the expectation and have a road map for the future masters, treasurer, and finance Committee to follow.
The concern you mention, that a Brother not skilled at financial matters is elected Master, is certainly vaid, and will undoubtedly happen sooner or later.
I think that is perfectly OK. Not everyone is interested in financial management, and not everyone is good at it. Certainly I think, no one seeks to become Master of his Lodge in order to manage the bank accounts. We, I hope anyway, seek to become Worshipful Master in order to lead our Lodge, and teach our Brothers the lessons of Freemasonry.
The trick is, I think, twofold, and mentioned in your comment:
- Have a strong enough financial Committee in the Lodge so that the Master who is uninterested or unskilled in financial management won't feel that he must do this job that he is unsuited for. I think that most folks recognize it when they lack a certain skill, and are pleased to have others do that work, if they trust them to do it well.
- Build a track record of success with that financial Committee so that Lodge members look for and value the input of its members. The Master may create a budget, but it requires approval of the Lodge, and a finance Committee will be looked to for its opinion, if it has shown past success.
I think that you are very much on track, and applaud your efforts!
We shouldn’t be too harsh on the men left holding the bag after most likely decades of mediocrity. Nobody taught them how to run a successful Lodge because nobody taught their predecessors. Congrats to the Lodge for raising funds over those years, but the purpose of a Lodge isn’t to grow a bank account.
It is, in fact, their money. And, as they sit in confusion around a casserole wondering why participation is down, it is understandable to see outcomes described in the article. Perhaps, instead, they should have spent the money. Spent it on improving the building, replacing old equipment, and introducing technology in the physical space and on their Lodge website. Spent it on providing quality meals, hiring speakers to come in during meals, and enticing Masons from other Lodges to assist in their degree work. And yes, spent it on themselves, by purchasing enrollment in the Scottish Rites’ Symbolic Degrees Master Craftsman program, travel to the Lodge Leadership seminars, and gas to visit other Lodges doing better.
In that expenditure of funds, the Lodge might have a chance for survival. Fake it until they make it. Make Masons who fall in love with the craft. Masons who use the tools of the craft to improve themselves, their family, and their careers. Make Masons who, over a lifetime of benefiting from the craft, feel the desire to give back and start to refill those Lodge coffers.
I don't think that you and I have any fundamental disagreement on this issue.
I wouldn't view any of the things you mention as a waste of resources, or an inappropriate expenditure because each and every one of them has the potential to improve the Lodge, and help it thrive into a bright future.
We certainly should spend money to maintain and improve our buildings. We should spend money on technology. We should spend it on good quality meals, and great Lodge programs. We should also spend it on self improvement and leadership training. All of these things are good, and each of them can help to assure the future of the Lodge.
Indeed, I am aware of at least one Lodge that is sitting on a pile of cash, but so afraid to spend any of it that the Lodge experience is much lower than what it could and should be.
But we can not be spending our Lodge money purchasing ourselves Life Memberships in a Lodge that we know we will be voting to close, just so that we never have to pay dues to whatever neighboring Lodge we eventually affiliate with.
We can not be giving away the bulk of, or even all of our money, to a non-Masonic organization just so that the money can't be utilized by whatever neighboring Lodge we eventually merge into.
In my view, this partially comes down to intent. Everything you mention has the intent of improving the Lodge experience. Items mentioned in the original post have the intent of personal financial improvement using Lodge resources.
It also comes down to effect. The things you mention have the effect of improving Masonry. Perhaps in the long term, but certainly in the short term. The items mentioned in the post have the effect of harming Masonry by needlessly depleting resources for personal financial gain.
I do think that we are in total agreement that a Lodge should use its money to improve the Masonic experience.
“It’s not our money@ has ALWAYS been my mantra as a director in a state agency, a CIO of a school district and as a President/CEO of a nonprofit. Our Scottish Rite Association continues to benefit from that philosophy. It’s only right in the Rite.
This makes me think of a local lodge that has a huge warchest, and and $20 annual dues combined with free everything at lodge as their main draw. Their membership is small so they tend to vote themselves free lunch and avoid paying real dues (it's their money) which is effectively a vote by the membership to gradually spend down the inheritance given to them by previous generations.
When a Masonic appeal comes up for example about Puerto Rico, they quibble over whether $100 donation from the lodge is too rich, when in fact they wouldn't miss 5x the amount.
The money problems may be secondary though. In the example in this post and also the lodge I know, we're describing sorta zombie lodges which are dead (but not yet) and have no animating purpose. It's hard for them to expend funds with any real wisdom or purpose if they don't .... have a purpose. This loss seems to predate consolidation by a number of years.
Your term 'zombie lodge' is I think entirely fitting, and one I have used myself. I imagine that most active Masons have encountered zombie Lodges, and they are sad to behold.
One Mason whom I respect a great deal has suggested to me that our Grand Lodges develop a process whereby such Lodges could be put into a form of 'receivership.' Where they would still be allowed to operate, but would be given assistance and required to meet certain benchmarks in order to maintain their Charter. His theory is that Lodges must meet certain standards in order to receive a Charter in the first place, if those standards can no longer be met by a Lodge, drastic steps should be taken.
Another option of course is to pull the Charters of such Lodges.
There was in my area a zombie Lodge, operating as such for about ten years. What I found most distressing about it was the fact that they still received petitions from time to time. A man would petition, receive the Degrees, and then be promptly driven away from Masonry because the Lodge experience was so very bad. To my memory, not a single man that Lodge brought in over those ten years remained an active Mason. But, had those same men joined another area Lodge, they might still be active. That is a real world negative consequence our Fraternity faces due to the fact that we allow zombie Lodges to continue functioning.
The "receivership" model is interesting. There are some GLs I'm familiar with that have a "health scoring" process for lodges so that an internal GL committee can know across a state who is in trouble. I'm over-simplifying, but it's something like,
- If you raised a master mason last year you get a point
- If you have fewer than 25% NPDs you get a point
- If you booked a social event you get a point
And then "healthy" is defined as a certain number of points or more.
Respectfully, I think there are a number of such models which could work. I wouldn't stand and argue for or against health scoring, receivership, or any kind of idea. Where I find things have typically been lacking is "bringing consequences" and the political aspect. No matter the system adopted, there's some point where real consequences start to mount for the lodge. Typically these consequences are some form of "loss of autonomy" (up to and including forced consolidation).
It's very very very hard for most leadership (as far as I've witnessed) to force this issue because masonic lodges are fiercely independent, and because our institution places such an emphasis on maintaining harmony. This is a tough problem: because fixing big issues requires strategic, careful, thoughtful, empathetic *disagreement* and in some cases *disharmony*. Things can't stay the same because we know where that goes. Navigating that (let's face it) intentional disharmony is a very tricky leadership business. We want to think that we can get everyone's hearts and minds aligned but ultimately that tends not to be the case. (We should still try, just not place consensus as a gating criteria)
Zombies don't want to die.
I think you are certainly correct to point out the 'political will' that would be necessary if such a model were to work. Tough decisions would be needed to be made, and as you say, consequences enforced. It would not be an easy thing for leadership to do.
lot of empathy for leadership here. It's one thing to charge around like a bull in a china shop shouting "this thing needs to happen", quite another to put yourself into the shoes and ask, "How would I handle this?" I don't know.
Excellent, MW. This might be worth reposting annually.
I’m working on my first budget. My goals include protecting our capital and being much more deliberate with our operating income.
Motions to spend funds not in the budget will be entertained *after* the Brother has worked with our Finance committee to identify what ought to be cut, to pay for the motion. That or pass the hat.
We’ll see how it goes.
I know that all Lodges should have a well thought out and planned out annual budget, but a great many in this Jurisdiction do not. I think that by creating one for your Lodge, you are certainly on a winning track.
I've watched Lodges that do not have strong budgeting spend an inordinate amount of time on very small and ultimately meaningless expenditures, while Lodges with a strong tradition of budgeting can take care of the 'bills' in a matter of seconds.
I remember one of the first things I was ever told when I became a Mason was that 'no one ever joined Freemasonry to pay the bills' and I've tried to never forget that lesson. Lodges that take far too much time doing business at Stated Meetings will see a disengaged membership, because it is just not what Masons want to spend their time doing. A proper budget speeds all of that up, freeing up Stated Meeting time for good fellowship and great education. That time is what brings men back to Lodge.
As a brand new treasurer, I want to ensure the management of our monies is simple, streamlined, and consistently handled. Having a proper budget and an active Finance Committee (required by code!) Will make this work much smoother.
The longer term problem is that the master gets to make his budget, and each year we can have some one ill suited to handle that task. It's my hope that we create a culture where this will become the expectation and have a road map for the future masters, treasurer, and finance Committee to follow.
The concern you mention, that a Brother not skilled at financial matters is elected Master, is certainly vaid, and will undoubtedly happen sooner or later.
I think that is perfectly OK. Not everyone is interested in financial management, and not everyone is good at it. Certainly I think, no one seeks to become Master of his Lodge in order to manage the bank accounts. We, I hope anyway, seek to become Worshipful Master in order to lead our Lodge, and teach our Brothers the lessons of Freemasonry.
The trick is, I think, twofold, and mentioned in your comment:
- Have a strong enough financial Committee in the Lodge so that the Master who is uninterested or unskilled in financial management won't feel that he must do this job that he is unsuited for. I think that most folks recognize it when they lack a certain skill, and are pleased to have others do that work, if they trust them to do it well.
- Build a track record of success with that financial Committee so that Lodge members look for and value the input of its members. The Master may create a budget, but it requires approval of the Lodge, and a finance Committee will be looked to for its opinion, if it has shown past success.
I think that you are very much on track, and applaud your efforts!
Here are some pre-morning coffee thoughts…
We shouldn’t be too harsh on the men left holding the bag after most likely decades of mediocrity. Nobody taught them how to run a successful Lodge because nobody taught their predecessors. Congrats to the Lodge for raising funds over those years, but the purpose of a Lodge isn’t to grow a bank account.
It is, in fact, their money. And, as they sit in confusion around a casserole wondering why participation is down, it is understandable to see outcomes described in the article. Perhaps, instead, they should have spent the money. Spent it on improving the building, replacing old equipment, and introducing technology in the physical space and on their Lodge website. Spent it on providing quality meals, hiring speakers to come in during meals, and enticing Masons from other Lodges to assist in their degree work. And yes, spent it on themselves, by purchasing enrollment in the Scottish Rites’ Symbolic Degrees Master Craftsman program, travel to the Lodge Leadership seminars, and gas to visit other Lodges doing better.
In that expenditure of funds, the Lodge might have a chance for survival. Fake it until they make it. Make Masons who fall in love with the craft. Masons who use the tools of the craft to improve themselves, their family, and their careers. Make Masons who, over a lifetime of benefiting from the craft, feel the desire to give back and start to refill those Lodge coffers.
I don't think that you and I have any fundamental disagreement on this issue.
I wouldn't view any of the things you mention as a waste of resources, or an inappropriate expenditure because each and every one of them has the potential to improve the Lodge, and help it thrive into a bright future.
We certainly should spend money to maintain and improve our buildings. We should spend money on technology. We should spend it on good quality meals, and great Lodge programs. We should also spend it on self improvement and leadership training. All of these things are good, and each of them can help to assure the future of the Lodge.
Indeed, I am aware of at least one Lodge that is sitting on a pile of cash, but so afraid to spend any of it that the Lodge experience is much lower than what it could and should be.
But we can not be spending our Lodge money purchasing ourselves Life Memberships in a Lodge that we know we will be voting to close, just so that we never have to pay dues to whatever neighboring Lodge we eventually affiliate with.
We can not be giving away the bulk of, or even all of our money, to a non-Masonic organization just so that the money can't be utilized by whatever neighboring Lodge we eventually merge into.
In my view, this partially comes down to intent. Everything you mention has the intent of improving the Lodge experience. Items mentioned in the original post have the intent of personal financial improvement using Lodge resources.
It also comes down to effect. The things you mention have the effect of improving Masonry. Perhaps in the long term, but certainly in the short term. The items mentioned in the post have the effect of harming Masonry by needlessly depleting resources for personal financial gain.
I do think that we are in total agreement that a Lodge should use its money to improve the Masonic experience.
“It’s not our money@ has ALWAYS been my mantra as a director in a state agency, a CIO of a school district and as a President/CEO of a nonprofit. Our Scottish Rite Association continues to benefit from that philosophy. It’s only right in the Rite.