If you suddenly became the ALL POWERFUL SUPREME DICTATOR of Freemasonry, what one thing would you do to improve it?
Those with a paid subscription to Emeth should be on the lookout for a second email this morning at 8:00 AM, announcing our live, open, discussion thread. Let’s discuss whatever you would like to discuss! It will be great fun!
Require at a minimum quarterly attendance of meetings, and one of them has to be the election night of officers. If you belong to multiple lodges, you're required to make quarterly meetings at each lodge. If you've moved away from your home lodge, demit from that and join another that you can attend. There would, of course, need to be some sort of allowances given for sickness and infirmity.
If it was just for our jurisdiction, I would ban assessments from GL to the blue lodges. GL needs to live within it's means. If that requires cutting staff, selling property, reducing salaries, etc then so be it.
I figure that one of them doesn't really count, because it is a Historical Lodge, not an actual working Lodge.
That leaves three. My home Lodge, which I greatly enjoy and admire. I received my Degrees there, but given my work situation, I would have never been able to sit in a chair within that Lodge.
So, I joined a different Lodge, nearby, that had a meeting scheduled that was not in conflict with my work schedule. There I was able to sit in a chair.
Then I moved. So, I joined the third Lodge because it was where I live now, and my other two Lodges are way too far to be able to attend regularly.
I didn't demit out of those first two, because I figure that my dues help them, and I figure that given that our Jurisdiction allows for freely being a member of multiple, it was worth some level of loyalty for me to stay.
So, that's my story. Why I'm a member of four.
But...
I don't know that it is a good thing.
I actually believe that we were better served back in the time before multiple Lodge memberships were allowed.
The way I see it, the trouble with plural memberships is that it divides a man's energy, his time, and his loyalty. It also removes a powerful incentive to actually make things better. The man who is a member of a handful of Lodges can think to himself 'well, if this one fails, I've still got that one over there.'
Great leadership is in my view possible when a man can devote his energy, his time, and his loyalty to a purpose. It is also possible when he has no easy option other than to provide that leadership. I fear that easy plural memberships badly interfere with all of these things. Maybe not for everyone, but for most.
I certainly wouldn't cry if the Brother's of Washington voted to no longer allow plural memberships.
If, by some odd circumstance I *did* become the ALL POWERFUL SUPREME DICTATOR, I would resign at once! I will stand up to be a temporary leader, but never a dictator. As for "all-powerful," I'm not certain I could stand the pressure to be all-wise, as well. I am most certainly NOT God, nor would I wish to be.
Answering the more practical side of the question, when it comes to the direct representatives of the Grand Master--the District Deputies, I would commission them with the authority and responsibility to ACT for the Grand Master, as well, in addition to being the "eyes and ears" for him. I have seen Lodges which have lost their sense of direction and are "doing things their way." There is but *one* way, and that is according to the Masonic Code. Anything outside of that is not allowable, nor should it be tolerated.
Give the District Deputies some teeth. After all the "suggestions" and polite discussions have failed to get the Lodges' attention, authorize the Deputy to suspend the Lodge's Charter for up to six months, accompanied by a printed plan for improvement. This would, of course be done by prior coordination with the Grand Master, but would be nonetheless binding.
If the Lodge shows improvement after the period of suspension, they would be allowed to resume active meetings. If no improvement is demonstrated, the Deputy recommends to the Grand Master that the Charter be permanently removed, and the Lodge no longer exists. So be it.
It seems that you and I are thinking alike. Yesterday I was discussing this very thing with the Grand Secretary.
When I received my orientation as a DDGM, it was drummed into us that we weren't supposed to tell the Lodges what to do, we were supposed to teach them how to figure out what to do. We weren't supposed to 'do' anything, we were supposed to 'report' everything.
That doesn't strike me as quite right.
We have very good Lodges in this Jurisdiction. We also have some really questionable ones. I think that our DDGM's need to be, as you suggest, able to take decisive action when called for. They need to be leaders, not tattle tales.
The key is though, I think, balance, and where we strike it.
I'd like to see DDGM's able to act, able to lead, but I don't want to create a bunch of tyrants either.
keep the secret
Require at a minimum quarterly attendance of meetings, and one of them has to be the election night of officers. If you belong to multiple lodges, you're required to make quarterly meetings at each lodge. If you've moved away from your home lodge, demit from that and join another that you can attend. There would, of course, need to be some sort of allowances given for sickness and infirmity.
If it was just for our jurisdiction, I would ban assessments from GL to the blue lodges. GL needs to live within it's means. If that requires cutting staff, selling property, reducing salaries, etc then so be it.
I'm a member of four Lodges.
I figure that one of them doesn't really count, because it is a Historical Lodge, not an actual working Lodge.
That leaves three. My home Lodge, which I greatly enjoy and admire. I received my Degrees there, but given my work situation, I would have never been able to sit in a chair within that Lodge.
So, I joined a different Lodge, nearby, that had a meeting scheduled that was not in conflict with my work schedule. There I was able to sit in a chair.
Then I moved. So, I joined the third Lodge because it was where I live now, and my other two Lodges are way too far to be able to attend regularly.
I didn't demit out of those first two, because I figure that my dues help them, and I figure that given that our Jurisdiction allows for freely being a member of multiple, it was worth some level of loyalty for me to stay.
So, that's my story. Why I'm a member of four.
But...
I don't know that it is a good thing.
I actually believe that we were better served back in the time before multiple Lodge memberships were allowed.
The way I see it, the trouble with plural memberships is that it divides a man's energy, his time, and his loyalty. It also removes a powerful incentive to actually make things better. The man who is a member of a handful of Lodges can think to himself 'well, if this one fails, I've still got that one over there.'
Great leadership is in my view possible when a man can devote his energy, his time, and his loyalty to a purpose. It is also possible when he has no easy option other than to provide that leadership. I fear that easy plural memberships badly interfere with all of these things. Maybe not for everyone, but for most.
I certainly wouldn't cry if the Brother's of Washington voted to no longer allow plural memberships.
If, by some odd circumstance I *did* become the ALL POWERFUL SUPREME DICTATOR, I would resign at once! I will stand up to be a temporary leader, but never a dictator. As for "all-powerful," I'm not certain I could stand the pressure to be all-wise, as well. I am most certainly NOT God, nor would I wish to be.
Answering the more practical side of the question, when it comes to the direct representatives of the Grand Master--the District Deputies, I would commission them with the authority and responsibility to ACT for the Grand Master, as well, in addition to being the "eyes and ears" for him. I have seen Lodges which have lost their sense of direction and are "doing things their way." There is but *one* way, and that is according to the Masonic Code. Anything outside of that is not allowable, nor should it be tolerated.
Give the District Deputies some teeth. After all the "suggestions" and polite discussions have failed to get the Lodges' attention, authorize the Deputy to suspend the Lodge's Charter for up to six months, accompanied by a printed plan for improvement. This would, of course be done by prior coordination with the Grand Master, but would be nonetheless binding.
If the Lodge shows improvement after the period of suspension, they would be allowed to resume active meetings. If no improvement is demonstrated, the Deputy recommends to the Grand Master that the Charter be permanently removed, and the Lodge no longer exists. So be it.
That's what *I* would do.
From what I have heard, that is how it works in California.
It seems that you and I are thinking alike. Yesterday I was discussing this very thing with the Grand Secretary.
When I received my orientation as a DDGM, it was drummed into us that we weren't supposed to tell the Lodges what to do, we were supposed to teach them how to figure out what to do. We weren't supposed to 'do' anything, we were supposed to 'report' everything.
That doesn't strike me as quite right.
We have very good Lodges in this Jurisdiction. We also have some really questionable ones. I think that our DDGM's need to be, as you suggest, able to take decisive action when called for. They need to be leaders, not tattle tales.
The key is though, I think, balance, and where we strike it.
I'd like to see DDGM's able to act, able to lead, but I don't want to create a bunch of tyrants either.
We should expect some change along these lines.
I've seen some WM's who thought they were and it did not end well.
To be an effective leader, one must have the respect of those he hopes to lead.