Last evening I sat through a difficult Lodge discussion. The Lodge isn’t currently surviving, let alone thriving. The members of the Lodge were therefore engaged in a debate. Should they merge with a neighboring Lodge, given that their Lodge is not currently viable, or should they spend yet another year trying to turn things around. No decision was made last night, but is expected to be at their next meeting.
That brings a question to my mind…
Should the Craft, as a whole, through its respective Grand Lodges, set minimum standards of viability that a Lodge must maintain in order to retain its Charter?
Perhaps some Grand Lodges already do this, mine does not. Here in Washington a Lodge must meet minimum standards in order to receive a Charter, but once received need not meet set standards to retain it.
What do you think? Should there be a mechanism whereby a Lodge loses its Charter if it fails to meet preset standards?
I am not a fan of plural membership in lodges ,or letting elected Secretary and treasures from one lodge being elected to those positions in another lodge. Most the time it really does more harm than good. One thing i have noticed over the years when these things happen the Lodges involved are all hurt, due to the Brothers not being able to make the necessary time required for either lodge to be successful.
I think that plural memberships are good for Masons, and for Lodges, if there is a good reason for a man to seek that plural membership. But 'To Save A Lodge' is generally not a good reason in my view. I say that, because I haven't seen it work except in extremely rare cases. The overwhelming majority of the time, all it accomplishes is a delay in what would have happened anyway.
Ultimately, in my view, a Mason can only truly focus on a single Lodge at any given point in his Masonic journey. To split his attention between two Lodges robs each of them of the energy they need to thrive.
So yes, I agree, strongly, a man should hold elected office in one Lodge at a time, only.
A Brother in Seattle has some very solid, but still developing ideas about how a Lodge could, as you say, be turned over to others who could help get it on track, before it is too far gone. I'm looking forward to having an opportunity to consider that in our Jurisdiction once it is fully fleshed out.
I believe strongly that every lodge should be able to confer all the degrees with their own members and have the finances to pay the bills.
That being said, in todays climate not many lodges can fulfil that requirement. The reasons are as varied as the lodges, but the mane cause can be traced back to not demanding enough from our members. That has led far to many lodges to recycle officers over and over. Change can be a double-edged sord and I hated to hear, "if you aren't changing your going backwards" when I was in business travelling to different plants. We as a fraternity have to change our way of thinking and follow our charge before a ballot, vote for the good of the order. Change in Masonry is something that is hard to implement but not impossible.
I Maine the DDGM has to observe and grad each lodge in his district on a degree and the state of their finances. With that report I believe the Grand Master could remove a charter. I can't say for a fact that has ever happened though.
I am super keen on the idea of Degree Teams made up of Brothers from lots of Lodges. I think that a lot of Masons would really enjoy participating on a Team like that, and I know that many Lodges could benefit from it. Thank you!
I've seen lodges become so totally fixated on trying to train a constantly changing line of officers to perform degrees that charity work and fraternal socializing died off for a year!
Washington is very similar to Maine I imagine in that very few Charters have actually ever been pulled, no matter how bad things got in a Lodge. It has happened, but it is super rare.
I guess we should start with what a non-viable lodge looks like. Is it the number of members? Active members? Available assets? Is a lodge viable if it has plenty of active members but can’t pay its bills? In my home district, I see real estate being the down fall lodges in the end, that and pride. Being unable make hard decisions to possibly consolidate locations. The lodges in my home district, for the most part, are healthy and viable but as a whole they own too much real estate that is old and in need of costly repairs and maintenance. If GL were to come up with a criteria to determine if a lodge has become non-viable, then a committee should be empaneled so that the process wouldn’t become punitive because of a conflict of personalities. I think removing a Charter should be done with great care. To take away a lodge’s autonomy is a grave thing. Most Masons will come to the difficult decisions on their own, but they are also the Masons giving what they can to try and save their lodge. And what happens when there isn’t a nearby lodge for them to merge with or, the neighboring lodge votes not to accept the merger because of personal animosity or the failing lodge has no dowry? What becomes of the Brothers? Are they cast aside and exiled because the next nearest lodge is 50 or 100 miles away? Lastly, what is the viability of GL? They are an expensive endeavor with expensive real estate. If, GL was to fall under a “viability review”, what value would be found for the craft?
I agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts about Real Estate. Worry in a Lodge about paying for a building that can no longer be paid for has been the downfall of a lot of Lodges. And in many cases, there just isn't a reason to have Masonic Temples (not Lodges, but the Temples themselves) in close proximity to each other. Multiple Lodges can use a single building, reducing the strain on each individual Lodge.
We would do well to remember that we built these buildings before we had the easy transportation of today. It's not that hard to drive a bit anymore.
I think that Grand Lodges are another discussion, but my quick thought is that we have built a superstructure (and associated rules) for a Craft three to four times larger than our Craft is today.
Excellent topic Emeth. I have been in discussion on this over the years from one Brother to another and views range in a huge spectrum. There is the view that a lodge is 'viable' if they at a minimum can open and close with a quorum. There is an opposite view on this that is if a lodge only meets with quorum but there is no lodge work being performed then what is the point??
I am of the opinion as a Past Master that if a lodge is "ONLY" meeting and they are not doing Masonic Work then what is the point of being a lodge. If this hypothetical lodge is one of 5 or so lodges in a three county radius then the lodge brothers would be better served to consolidate with a stronger lodge and be a part of Masonic Work.
If a lodge does not do Masonic Work such as charity within, checking in on widows and orphans. They do not have dinners and things for the membership to look forward to then again, what is the point?
Consolidation is a difficult thing but it is necessary and to be completely honest not used enough.
Masonic Centers with a huge membership would part oceans.
Thank you Brother. I agree. If a Lodge is performing no Masonic work, then it is without a reason to exist. At that point, it either must change, consolidate, or end. There is no point dragging it through a slow and painful death.
I have been thinking about this lately and a Lodge that you MW are overseeing might be better off Cosoldating with no. 63. There wouldn't be a huge advantage in members who actually show up to meetings but all the Life Memberships would transfer and the they produce an annual return return of about $2300.00 which would go to Centralia Lodge and not the Temple Board. WS & W night could become a Centralia tradition. I would be OK with that move if the viability of the Lodge you are in charge of doesn't work.
I watched 30 lodges in CA's Bay Area consolidate in the East Bay down to 5. I stepped forward to be Master again to save one of them who had lost all 3 principal officers in a couple of months. There were enough young officers for a full line. To be installed as Master you have to prove up all degree work as Master to the District Inspector in CA before installation. All the PMs who sat down with the GM were burnt-out crispy critters from their travels to the East. So I took a second term in a plural lodge (relieving the JW who was moving out of state).
When I moved up here I joined the local 'troubled' lodge, and took over the Secretary's job to allow him to retire in good graces. At that point the 4 lodges closest to me ALL had problems with declining membership / leadership. I watched some of our members strive to keep other lodges alive, by providing leaders from my lodge to populate the lines of the 3 other lodges. At that time it seemed that there weren't enough members for 4 lines of officers for the 4 lodges. There may have been enough for 2 lodges. I don't know if that is true today.
What I saw at the last meeting will not fix problem in the District. I get it. Members are partial to the lodges they built, and they think they should last forever. Yet, had I not volunteered for a second season in the East, the charter of the 150+ year CA lodge might not be active today..
What we forget is that we are all made Master Masons before signing a lodge's by-laws as a member, which also confirms our Grand Lodge membership, should the local lodge fail. Or a new one gets chartered. But our assets are decaying before our eyes. I think there is a single exception to a lack of rentals among the 4 lodge properties of the 4 closest lodges. We can even do traveling degrees if we don't have a physical lodge. So I'm suggesting that our next District meeting have a discussion of the 4 properties as investment properties, or a re-purpose of the lodge properties for rental purposes. The Western lodge we were in would make a nice wedding chapel, for example. Northern lodge might be an Air bed-n-breakfast . Eastern lodge has commercial space available. Southern Lodge has Christmas exposition. We need a meeting to make more such suggestions. Can we link 2 lodges together as corporate entity to manage properties, for example?
I'm sure there are many better suggestions available. But a single merger is not going to help for long.
I heard a Grand Master from your home Jurisdiction remark once: "We have a billion dollars worth of Real Estate, every dollar of it managed by amateurs."
I'm a rather odd Mason, in that I've always enjoyed serving on Temple Boards. I've been President of Temple Boards in the past, and I am again now. But, I'm an amateur. I'm an amateur in the position of operating a building worth millions of dollars.
I appreciate, and agree with your suggestion that Lodges should (with neighboring Lodges if possible) take a good hard look at the Real Estate, and think about beneficial uses for it. I also think that getting some professional help with that would be a very good idea.
On Wednesday I drove through the small town of Washtucna, Wa. I had to stop and admire the old Masonic Hall on the Main Street through town. It appeared that the building had not been used in several years, and I told myself to remember to look up the lodge to see if it was still active.
The town is at least 30 miles from any other town, surrounded by wheat fields and scabland, with the Palouse River running nearby, a few miles north of Palouse Falls.
If there were three brothers within 30 miles who were inclined to meet on the level, I would think that would serve as just cause to open the doors.
Where I was born in northern Maine, it was over 20 miles to the nearest Masonic Lodge, so I had never heard of the Freemasons until much later in life, yet the local Grange was quite active, giving the local populace a vital social experience.
Rather than taking away the last chance for a “failing” lodge, what if the Grand Lodge developed a program to assist the lodge with (dare I say) recruitment, publicity, and development. In the last 20 years I have seen several lodges close their doors or consolidate from small towns that may have been candidates for GL assistance.
There is good assistance from the GL in WA - training on many topics, individual advice on various topics, etc.
But GL is not and cannot be in the business of running or saving Lodges. That must be up to the local Brothers. If there aren’t enough with the energy *and* capabilities... well wishful thinking and good intentions ain’t enough.
I understand what you are getting at, because here in SW Washington we lost a Lodge a few years back that was the last in its area. There is now a huge swath of our State with no Masonry at all. And that's a terrible shame.
This is anecdotal, but one thing I have noticed in my extensive travels though is that when I would encounter a struggling Lodge, I'd generally ask how many of their members had gone to the Lodge Leadership Retreat, and how long ago. Almost always, in those struggling Lodges, the answer was that no one had gone in as long as the men I was asking could remember.
The longest journey begins with the first step. Let's look at the future in a slightly different way. Seeing the future within the present is one key to success.
The business of the Lodge is manyfold, e.g.; 1) the actual monthly business of the Lodge, 2) the active participation of the membership of the Lodge, 3) the interaction (publicity) of the Lodge with the community, 4) the continuing participation of the members especially Past Masters, 5) understanding the reason men join the Lodge, remembering each person has their own reason {one attribute that slips past is the man who joins to have an evening with other men), 6) traveling to attend other Lodges with a group from your Lodge, 7) interaction with other Masonic groups, (I was initially shocked when a brother also in Eastern Star referred to himself as a "Petticoat Mason."), 8) recruiting men who will become active members.
One answer is effective Long Range Planning. Long Range means five years as a minimum. The key to "effective' is adopting the planning format of Vision, Mission, Goals. Objectives. Then adding the steps of; 1) Accepting the trigger, 2) Researching the needed actions, 3) Acting on the research, 4) Terminating the project with a report to the Lodge on success and failures. The key to effective planning is effective metrics. Efficiency, Quality, Cycle Time, Schedule. . "Efficiency" is the expenditure of resources against the plan, these resources are both the dollars and the time each member commits to the project. "Quality" is doing the work asked for the deliverable and no more. "Cycle Time" is expending the planned time for each step. "Schedule" is reporting the deliverable back to the
lodge when requested.
This is not easy for the beginner, this comes from adopting Project Management principles from a 40 year career working the role of a problem-solver. The best role for Grand Lodge is to work through examples with a Lodge showing the benefits of this way of thinking. First an announcement on the Grand Lodge webpage, then a YouTube video with the benefit of using this approach to inform all Lodges, then trained volunteers working through the steps to build the first plan when requested.
T E Lawrence (of Arabia): "All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds awake to find that it was vanity; But the dreamers of day are dangerous men. That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible."
Thank you for this Brother, it is undoubtedly valuable. It could set a path for a Lodge to thrive into the future, and it could help prevent a Lodge from 'spinning its wheels.' I think that Grand Lodges benefit from this as well, whipsawing from GM to GM can't be effective, but doing the work of planning, and then working that plan, across years and terms certainly can be.
I am not a fan of plural membership in lodges ,or letting elected Secretary and treasures from one lodge being elected to those positions in another lodge. Most the time it really does more harm than good. One thing i have noticed over the years when these things happen the Lodges involved are all hurt, due to the Brothers not being able to make the necessary time required for either lodge to be successful.
I think that plural memberships are good for Masons, and for Lodges, if there is a good reason for a man to seek that plural membership. But 'To Save A Lodge' is generally not a good reason in my view. I say that, because I haven't seen it work except in extremely rare cases. The overwhelming majority of the time, all it accomplishes is a delay in what would have happened anyway.
Ultimately, in my view, a Mason can only truly focus on a single Lodge at any given point in his Masonic journey. To split his attention between two Lodges robs each of them of the energy they need to thrive.
So yes, I agree, strongly, a man should hold elected office in one Lodge at a time, only.
Yes, yes, a million times yes. Either pull the charters or turn them over to a team of other Brothers.
A Brother in Seattle has some very solid, but still developing ideas about how a Lodge could, as you say, be turned over to others who could help get it on track, before it is too far gone. I'm looking forward to having an opportunity to consider that in our Jurisdiction once it is fully fleshed out.
I believe strongly that every lodge should be able to confer all the degrees with their own members and have the finances to pay the bills.
That being said, in todays climate not many lodges can fulfil that requirement. The reasons are as varied as the lodges, but the mane cause can be traced back to not demanding enough from our members. That has led far to many lodges to recycle officers over and over. Change can be a double-edged sord and I hated to hear, "if you aren't changing your going backwards" when I was in business travelling to different plants. We as a fraternity have to change our way of thinking and follow our charge before a ballot, vote for the good of the order. Change in Masonry is something that is hard to implement but not impossible.
I Maine the DDGM has to observe and grad each lodge in his district on a degree and the state of their finances. With that report I believe the Grand Master could remove a charter. I can't say for a fact that has ever happened though.
R.W. Robert D. Mercer:
It depends on what purpose you think Lodges are supposed to serve.
Requiring lodges to be self-sufficient in degree work is a lot like requiring a Book Club to be able to PRINT its own books - - else termination.
The time has come to have DISTRICT degree teams.
I am super keen on the idea of Degree Teams made up of Brothers from lots of Lodges. I think that a lot of Masons would really enjoy participating on a Team like that, and I know that many Lodges could benefit from it. Thank you!
I've seen lodges become so totally fixated on trying to train a constantly changing line of officers to perform degrees that charity work and fraternal socializing died off for a year!
Washington is very similar to Maine I imagine in that very few Charters have actually ever been pulled, no matter how bad things got in a Lodge. It has happened, but it is super rare.
I guess we should start with what a non-viable lodge looks like. Is it the number of members? Active members? Available assets? Is a lodge viable if it has plenty of active members but can’t pay its bills? In my home district, I see real estate being the down fall lodges in the end, that and pride. Being unable make hard decisions to possibly consolidate locations. The lodges in my home district, for the most part, are healthy and viable but as a whole they own too much real estate that is old and in need of costly repairs and maintenance. If GL were to come up with a criteria to determine if a lodge has become non-viable, then a committee should be empaneled so that the process wouldn’t become punitive because of a conflict of personalities. I think removing a Charter should be done with great care. To take away a lodge’s autonomy is a grave thing. Most Masons will come to the difficult decisions on their own, but they are also the Masons giving what they can to try and save their lodge. And what happens when there isn’t a nearby lodge for them to merge with or, the neighboring lodge votes not to accept the merger because of personal animosity or the failing lodge has no dowry? What becomes of the Brothers? Are they cast aside and exiled because the next nearest lodge is 50 or 100 miles away? Lastly, what is the viability of GL? They are an expensive endeavor with expensive real estate. If, GL was to fall under a “viability review”, what value would be found for the craft?
I agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts about Real Estate. Worry in a Lodge about paying for a building that can no longer be paid for has been the downfall of a lot of Lodges. And in many cases, there just isn't a reason to have Masonic Temples (not Lodges, but the Temples themselves) in close proximity to each other. Multiple Lodges can use a single building, reducing the strain on each individual Lodge.
We would do well to remember that we built these buildings before we had the easy transportation of today. It's not that hard to drive a bit anymore.
I think that Grand Lodges are another discussion, but my quick thought is that we have built a superstructure (and associated rules) for a Craft three to four times larger than our Craft is today.
Excellent topic Emeth. I have been in discussion on this over the years from one Brother to another and views range in a huge spectrum. There is the view that a lodge is 'viable' if they at a minimum can open and close with a quorum. There is an opposite view on this that is if a lodge only meets with quorum but there is no lodge work being performed then what is the point??
I am of the opinion as a Past Master that if a lodge is "ONLY" meeting and they are not doing Masonic Work then what is the point of being a lodge. If this hypothetical lodge is one of 5 or so lodges in a three county radius then the lodge brothers would be better served to consolidate with a stronger lodge and be a part of Masonic Work.
If a lodge does not do Masonic Work such as charity within, checking in on widows and orphans. They do not have dinners and things for the membership to look forward to then again, what is the point?
Consolidation is a difficult thing but it is necessary and to be completely honest not used enough.
Masonic Centers with a huge membership would part oceans.
My 2c. GO!
Thank you Brother. I agree. If a Lodge is performing no Masonic work, then it is without a reason to exist. At that point, it either must change, consolidate, or end. There is no point dragging it through a slow and painful death.
I have been thinking about this lately and a Lodge that you MW are overseeing might be better off Cosoldating with no. 63. There wouldn't be a huge advantage in members who actually show up to meetings but all the Life Memberships would transfer and the they produce an annual return return of about $2300.00 which would go to Centralia Lodge and not the Temple Board. WS & W night could become a Centralia tradition. I would be OK with that move if the viability of the Lodge you are in charge of doesn't work.
I agree. Time will tell, sooner rather than later.
I watched 30 lodges in CA's Bay Area consolidate in the East Bay down to 5. I stepped forward to be Master again to save one of them who had lost all 3 principal officers in a couple of months. There were enough young officers for a full line. To be installed as Master you have to prove up all degree work as Master to the District Inspector in CA before installation. All the PMs who sat down with the GM were burnt-out crispy critters from their travels to the East. So I took a second term in a plural lodge (relieving the JW who was moving out of state).
When I moved up here I joined the local 'troubled' lodge, and took over the Secretary's job to allow him to retire in good graces. At that point the 4 lodges closest to me ALL had problems with declining membership / leadership. I watched some of our members strive to keep other lodges alive, by providing leaders from my lodge to populate the lines of the 3 other lodges. At that time it seemed that there weren't enough members for 4 lines of officers for the 4 lodges. There may have been enough for 2 lodges. I don't know if that is true today.
What I saw at the last meeting will not fix problem in the District. I get it. Members are partial to the lodges they built, and they think they should last forever. Yet, had I not volunteered for a second season in the East, the charter of the 150+ year CA lodge might not be active today..
What we forget is that we are all made Master Masons before signing a lodge's by-laws as a member, which also confirms our Grand Lodge membership, should the local lodge fail. Or a new one gets chartered. But our assets are decaying before our eyes. I think there is a single exception to a lack of rentals among the 4 lodge properties of the 4 closest lodges. We can even do traveling degrees if we don't have a physical lodge. So I'm suggesting that our next District meeting have a discussion of the 4 properties as investment properties, or a re-purpose of the lodge properties for rental purposes. The Western lodge we were in would make a nice wedding chapel, for example. Northern lodge might be an Air bed-n-breakfast . Eastern lodge has commercial space available. Southern Lodge has Christmas exposition. We need a meeting to make more such suggestions. Can we link 2 lodges together as corporate entity to manage properties, for example?
I'm sure there are many better suggestions available. But a single merger is not going to help for long.
I heard a Grand Master from your home Jurisdiction remark once: "We have a billion dollars worth of Real Estate, every dollar of it managed by amateurs."
I'm a rather odd Mason, in that I've always enjoyed serving on Temple Boards. I've been President of Temple Boards in the past, and I am again now. But, I'm an amateur. I'm an amateur in the position of operating a building worth millions of dollars.
I appreciate, and agree with your suggestion that Lodges should (with neighboring Lodges if possible) take a good hard look at the Real Estate, and think about beneficial uses for it. I also think that getting some professional help with that would be a very good idea.
On Wednesday I drove through the small town of Washtucna, Wa. I had to stop and admire the old Masonic Hall on the Main Street through town. It appeared that the building had not been used in several years, and I told myself to remember to look up the lodge to see if it was still active.
The town is at least 30 miles from any other town, surrounded by wheat fields and scabland, with the Palouse River running nearby, a few miles north of Palouse Falls.
If there were three brothers within 30 miles who were inclined to meet on the level, I would think that would serve as just cause to open the doors.
Where I was born in northern Maine, it was over 20 miles to the nearest Masonic Lodge, so I had never heard of the Freemasons until much later in life, yet the local Grange was quite active, giving the local populace a vital social experience.
Rather than taking away the last chance for a “failing” lodge, what if the Grand Lodge developed a program to assist the lodge with (dare I say) recruitment, publicity, and development. In the last 20 years I have seen several lodges close their doors or consolidate from small towns that may have been candidates for GL assistance.
There is good assistance from the GL in WA - training on many topics, individual advice on various topics, etc.
But GL is not and cannot be in the business of running or saving Lodges. That must be up to the local Brothers. If there aren’t enough with the energy *and* capabilities... well wishful thinking and good intentions ain’t enough.
True. The Grand Lodge does not make Masons. And ultimately, saving a Lodge comes down to making and retaining Masons.
I understand what you are getting at, because here in SW Washington we lost a Lodge a few years back that was the last in its area. There is now a huge swath of our State with no Masonry at all. And that's a terrible shame.
This is anecdotal, but one thing I have noticed in my extensive travels though is that when I would encounter a struggling Lodge, I'd generally ask how many of their members had gone to the Lodge Leadership Retreat, and how long ago. Almost always, in those struggling Lodges, the answer was that no one had gone in as long as the men I was asking could remember.
The longest journey begins with the first step. Let's look at the future in a slightly different way. Seeing the future within the present is one key to success.
The business of the Lodge is manyfold, e.g.; 1) the actual monthly business of the Lodge, 2) the active participation of the membership of the Lodge, 3) the interaction (publicity) of the Lodge with the community, 4) the continuing participation of the members especially Past Masters, 5) understanding the reason men join the Lodge, remembering each person has their own reason {one attribute that slips past is the man who joins to have an evening with other men), 6) traveling to attend other Lodges with a group from your Lodge, 7) interaction with other Masonic groups, (I was initially shocked when a brother also in Eastern Star referred to himself as a "Petticoat Mason."), 8) recruiting men who will become active members.
One answer is effective Long Range Planning. Long Range means five years as a minimum. The key to "effective' is adopting the planning format of Vision, Mission, Goals. Objectives. Then adding the steps of; 1) Accepting the trigger, 2) Researching the needed actions, 3) Acting on the research, 4) Terminating the project with a report to the Lodge on success and failures. The key to effective planning is effective metrics. Efficiency, Quality, Cycle Time, Schedule. . "Efficiency" is the expenditure of resources against the plan, these resources are both the dollars and the time each member commits to the project. "Quality" is doing the work asked for the deliverable and no more. "Cycle Time" is expending the planned time for each step. "Schedule" is reporting the deliverable back to the
lodge when requested.
This is not easy for the beginner, this comes from adopting Project Management principles from a 40 year career working the role of a problem-solver. The best role for Grand Lodge is to work through examples with a Lodge showing the benefits of this way of thinking. First an announcement on the Grand Lodge webpage, then a YouTube video with the benefit of using this approach to inform all Lodges, then trained volunteers working through the steps to build the first plan when requested.
T E Lawrence (of Arabia): "All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds awake to find that it was vanity; But the dreamers of day are dangerous men. That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible."
Thank you for this Brother, it is undoubtedly valuable. It could set a path for a Lodge to thrive into the future, and it could help prevent a Lodge from 'spinning its wheels.' I think that Grand Lodges benefit from this as well, whipsawing from GM to GM can't be effective, but doing the work of planning, and then working that plan, across years and terms certainly can be.