It is very unfortunate, but sometimes a Lodge just can’t survive any longer, and needs to close.
In Washington, and I assume everywhere else, there are basically three options when this happens.
-The Lodge can just give its charter back and close.
-The Lodge can merge into another Lodge.
-The Lodge can convince another Lodge to consolidate the two together, forming a new Lodge out of the two old Lodges.
All of these options are viable, in Washington right now we have one Lodge in the process of closing down and giving its Charter back, and we have another Lodge in the process of deciding if it would prefer to merge or consolidate.
Of the three options, which do we think is best? Is there a major advantage to any of these options?
When we do loose a Lodge, should the Grand Lodge attempt to discover if there is interest among some of the Brothers in the area to break off and form an entirely new Lodge? Or is it best if the Grand Lodge stay out of that?
I would love to talk about it but encounter major resistance in bringing up the topic because it's so fraught. But I can attempt some thoughts.
It appears to me better that a lodge closes and turns in its charter, ideally with a "deal" with a another local lodge that affiliation petitions are most welcomed, to avoid leaving Masons homeless.
The consolidations I have seen have gone poorly. Each lodge has its own "character" and in a consolidation there is typically a lot of painful discussion about preservation of the consolidated lodge's stuff/character/personality/approach. There is no "merger of equals" in corporations or in Masonry although people always describe it as such. It's simply hard to end up with a true merger without one lodge feeling like it got eaten, or the other lodge feeling like it had its methods & customs forcibly adapted by the incoming lodge. For these reasons (harmony and continuity of a lodge's ability to maintain its character) it feels better to me to avoid consolidations and instead close lodges & permit affiliation. The affiliation process allows lodges too to evaluate the fit of each candidate, rather than accepting a boatload of new people all at once.
Here's another factor that doesn't get discussed: what about all the inactives? When a lodge folds, it might be the case that they have 4-5 really active members, but 50+ on the rolls. What happens to the 45? If you fold a lodge, they're probably homeless, and take no further action. If you consolidate, at least on paper they probably move over to the consolidated lodge as members (whether or not they ever make a dues payment is another matter).
Personally, in this era of refining / shrinking Masonry, it's best to "get on with it" and separate the active wheat from the chaff. Of *course* any brother who wants to re-engage should be welcomed with open arms, but if in this process there is "spring cleaning" done of the rolls I view that as a very good thing. This "spring cleaning" is very simple: require a member to take a single positive step (affiliate to a new lodge), just as we required them to give three distinct knocks at the very beginning. Those unwilling to do so signal their intent clearly, and a simple step of petitioning for affiliation is no real barrier for those who truly want to engage.
When we think about closing / consolidation though, let me frame it in terms of a few "questions" -- we could then compare/contrast different approaches based on how they answer those questions. Let's assume there is a marginal lodge (that which needs to be closed/consolidated) and there is a second lodge (that it could potentially consolidate into)
1. What happens to the second lodge's culture?
2. What provisions are made for the marginal lodge's history/artifacts?
3. How are remaining marginal lodge funds disbursed?
4. What happens to marginal lodge members on the rolls who are inactive or NPD?
5. If consolidation, what will the new line look like the year after consolidation?
Having gone through a consolidation with a neighboring lodge, I can tell you that it is a painful process, but one that has to be done. By the time the failing lodge closed, almost all of the principle officers were from other lodges who made every effort to keep the lodge afloat, but it became apparent to everyone that it needed to die. In the end the building was sold to the city and the contents of the lodge became part of our lodge.
The worst part was the loss. We lost some good brothers, we lost our own history as we had a new charter issued with our new name, and we lost a lodge that was in existence for almost 100 years. Not a single brother from the old lodge regularly attends meetings or functions
But our lodge gained a hefty sum of money from the sale of the lodge, as well as a decent scholarship nest egg, funds that have significantly benefited not only the lodge but the local community as well.
Consolation needs to happen, there is no reason beyond sentimentality not to. The is especially true in cities and towns with multiple lodges.
We as Masons by generally hold on to the past, it’s our culture but it is also one of our weaknesses. By the time a lodge starts having to make a decision between merging, closing or consolidating into a new lodge the Brothers that are still there are the ones that in many cases have bitter feelings and often times bring those bitter feelings into an merged or consolidated lodge.
It is my opinion that if a lodge is that close to closing that the best and most responsible thing to do is to turn in their charter and the brothers that remain choose which lodge to affiliate with. Any property that is owned should be offered first to local lodges so that the local Masonic community can still use and enjoy it within geographical areas. Finally real estate.....this is the tough part... many lodges that cannot continue still own real estate if that real estate, a serious look should be taken as to what happens to funds from that property. Should it just go into the Grand Lodge account, should it go to the charitable arm of the GL, should proceeds be shared among local lodges to help them continue to be viable etc
There’s some talk of consolidation around here. It may come to that.
But first, suppose we do consolidate into one, more active Lodge. We have energy, we build momentum, we start attracting new members. Great!
What will we want to do then? Why, we’ll want to form new Lodges with their own buildings in the same or nearby communities. We’d want those new buildings to be the source of further growth.
So why consolidate now? Let’s apply ourselves to fixing our own *and each other’s* Lodges.
If that fails, we can still merge but at least we’ll have given it a proper try.
I agree with the comments about guarding the West Gate.
But why not make part of our public communication about the tremendous opportunity to help rebuild a centuries-old institution? An institution which can offer so much to society?
After falling membership for so long and a high proportion of inactive v. active members, we need help.
Let’s say so, and attract the men who have a need to build or help rebuild.
I’ve been involved with a couple of mergers, including one that’s in the works right now. Not all Mergers occur because of the failure of a Lodge. The merger of Morton Lodge No. 209 into Robert Morris Lodge No. 97 is a good example. The active members of Morton were good leaders. It’s just that the town changed its dynamic. Morton was a bustling lumber town in the early 20th Century, when the Lodge was chartered. Now it’s just a shadow of what it used to be. In fact, the school’s student population had shrunk so much that Morton’s high school membership ‘merged’ with neighboring White Pass high school to field a football team. Same thing applied to the Masonic Lodge. My two Official Visits as District Deputy in 2009-2011 to that Lodge were the last meeting in the building, and Morton’s final meeting as a Lodge. Robert Morris integrated Morton’s assets and their membership into their own, and indeed became a stronger Lodge for it. A Past Master of Morton Lodge will become Afifi Shrine’s Potentate in the near future.
As the current Merger I’m involved with is still in progress, I prefer not to discuss any details here on this forum, out of respect to the Lodges involved.
As for Lodges surrendering their charter, you can check Sec. 25.05 B.L. of the WMC for how that works, although the Lodge can make donations before they surrender the Charter, such as Scholarship funds.
Forthrighter catches a lot of good points in his comment. I suggest all to read them if they haven’t already.
The answer to this question is actually quite simple. What is best for the fraternity? Having a lodge propped up by dual memberships or consolidating those members into a larger more viable organization? I've gone through 2 mergers. Both for the same reasons. Lack of active membership. Both times the craft benefited. I don't think the towns that the lodges were in even noticed the change. It was sad to see them go, but the combined lodges have become stronger with a renewed sense of purpose.
I think what is best, is probably determined by the Lodge, its history, the reason for closing and what the aspirations of the members of the closing Lodge have, if any. This subject touches on discussions of membership we have previously discussed. What we are dealing with here, in part, is the aging of the post WW2 surge. and a failure at the West Gate. If we integrated the traditions of fellowship, charity and cooperation that the Craft teaches these issues could be handled in the spirit of Masonry. If not, they are almost unresolvable. its really that simple.
I've been involved in closing two Lodges: my own as we were evicted because our landlord could not sacrifice his downstairs drugstore business when the city would force him to bring his entire building up to modern code(100 year-old building) after our plumbing failed. We consolidated with Deer Park Lodge 134 only 30 minutes south. This was very difficult due to the notification process, internal politics period, and politics with the receiving lodge. But, we got 'er done as I was the Secretary and like to get things done. The second was only several months ago when Colville 50 ran out of steam and asked to consolidate with us down South in Deer Park (Boyer Mountain). Colville was the oldest lodge in the northeast sector with a fantastic history but slowly ran low on steam. Fortunately, they chose to consolidate and it was a relatively simple process until the Covid19 panic came along. Anyway, thanks to the Godlike powers bestowed on the Grand Master, he managed to travel East and we got 'er done! Now, all is well.
I think consolidations are the best avenue, however the task results in a large loss of members as Masons do not care for change and often refuse to drive or travel a few minutes further to attend meetings in the new location. This is the real cost.
I do not know if it would be cost-effective for Grand Lodge to intervene and attempt to stir up energy from the Lodge members. This attack would be very situational depending on the average ages of the members. The most resistance, on the average, comes from those members exceeding age 85 or so as their "race is already run".
As other's have written, it's a very touchy topic.
I can draw from my professional life, where I specialized in rescue and turn around, as well as in aqusitions, and confirm that the sour feelings are not limited to Masonry. Failure is a bitter pill and it's not uncommon to see passive aggressive behavior, which may have been the cause of the failure, to infect the new endevor. That infection cannot be allowed to take root. To that end, I support the idea of closing the lodge, auditing the books. and cleaning house of members who no longer attend. Dead wood doesn't do anyone any good.
Disposition of the Lodge building can be an opportunity, and not just through a sale of property. Lodges, in the past and some in the present, had the forsight to have a rental on the ground floor. This income stream is critical to survival. If the closing lodge has such and income stream, then the building could be populated by a lodge that doesn't have such an attribute. Building and tenent management should be given to either a professional company, or Brothers with such professional experience. A tamper proof, long term financial plan needs to be put in place to protect the financial assets of the new venture.
Forthrighter makes some excellent points. As WEB Glenn pointed out, one lodge closed its doors and consolidated with another. It was a process fraught with disagreement, dismay, and downright hostility. (I have a complete set of letters, emails, and studies documenting the entire process, if anyone is considering such an action.)
The outcome was a new lodge, constituted in 2017. Members of the lodge that closed were transferred to the new lodge. The old building was and properties were sold to the city, and many of the furnishings were transferred to other lodges in the region. Pictures of Past Masters of the old lodge are hung in the new lodge, and as much as possible of the character of the old lodge has been incorporated into the new.
Four years later, resentments still exist, unfortunately. Brethren from the old lodge do not attend meetings, citing "personal reasons." Such is the way of people who resist change. Masonry at the moment is in a slump, but is in slow recovery. We may never again achieve the surge we experienced post-World War II, but we need to excite and attract younger men to our Fraternity, otherwise we will certainly perish.
I would love to talk about it but encounter major resistance in bringing up the topic because it's so fraught. But I can attempt some thoughts.
It appears to me better that a lodge closes and turns in its charter, ideally with a "deal" with a another local lodge that affiliation petitions are most welcomed, to avoid leaving Masons homeless.
The consolidations I have seen have gone poorly. Each lodge has its own "character" and in a consolidation there is typically a lot of painful discussion about preservation of the consolidated lodge's stuff/character/personality/approach. There is no "merger of equals" in corporations or in Masonry although people always describe it as such. It's simply hard to end up with a true merger without one lodge feeling like it got eaten, or the other lodge feeling like it had its methods & customs forcibly adapted by the incoming lodge. For these reasons (harmony and continuity of a lodge's ability to maintain its character) it feels better to me to avoid consolidations and instead close lodges & permit affiliation. The affiliation process allows lodges too to evaluate the fit of each candidate, rather than accepting a boatload of new people all at once.
Here's another factor that doesn't get discussed: what about all the inactives? When a lodge folds, it might be the case that they have 4-5 really active members, but 50+ on the rolls. What happens to the 45? If you fold a lodge, they're probably homeless, and take no further action. If you consolidate, at least on paper they probably move over to the consolidated lodge as members (whether or not they ever make a dues payment is another matter).
Personally, in this era of refining / shrinking Masonry, it's best to "get on with it" and separate the active wheat from the chaff. Of *course* any brother who wants to re-engage should be welcomed with open arms, but if in this process there is "spring cleaning" done of the rolls I view that as a very good thing. This "spring cleaning" is very simple: require a member to take a single positive step (affiliate to a new lodge), just as we required them to give three distinct knocks at the very beginning. Those unwilling to do so signal their intent clearly, and a simple step of petitioning for affiliation is no real barrier for those who truly want to engage.
When we think about closing / consolidation though, let me frame it in terms of a few "questions" -- we could then compare/contrast different approaches based on how they answer those questions. Let's assume there is a marginal lodge (that which needs to be closed/consolidated) and there is a second lodge (that it could potentially consolidate into)
1. What happens to the second lodge's culture?
2. What provisions are made for the marginal lodge's history/artifacts?
3. How are remaining marginal lodge funds disbursed?
4. What happens to marginal lodge members on the rolls who are inactive or NPD?
5. If consolidation, what will the new line look like the year after consolidation?
Having gone through a consolidation with a neighboring lodge, I can tell you that it is a painful process, but one that has to be done. By the time the failing lodge closed, almost all of the principle officers were from other lodges who made every effort to keep the lodge afloat, but it became apparent to everyone that it needed to die. In the end the building was sold to the city and the contents of the lodge became part of our lodge.
The worst part was the loss. We lost some good brothers, we lost our own history as we had a new charter issued with our new name, and we lost a lodge that was in existence for almost 100 years. Not a single brother from the old lodge regularly attends meetings or functions
But our lodge gained a hefty sum of money from the sale of the lodge, as well as a decent scholarship nest egg, funds that have significantly benefited not only the lodge but the local community as well.
Consolation needs to happen, there is no reason beyond sentimentality not to. The is especially true in cities and towns with multiple lodges.
We as Masons by generally hold on to the past, it’s our culture but it is also one of our weaknesses. By the time a lodge starts having to make a decision between merging, closing or consolidating into a new lodge the Brothers that are still there are the ones that in many cases have bitter feelings and often times bring those bitter feelings into an merged or consolidated lodge.
It is my opinion that if a lodge is that close to closing that the best and most responsible thing to do is to turn in their charter and the brothers that remain choose which lodge to affiliate with. Any property that is owned should be offered first to local lodges so that the local Masonic community can still use and enjoy it within geographical areas. Finally real estate.....this is the tough part... many lodges that cannot continue still own real estate if that real estate, a serious look should be taken as to what happens to funds from that property. Should it just go into the Grand Lodge account, should it go to the charitable arm of the GL, should proceeds be shared among local lodges to help them continue to be viable etc
There’s some talk of consolidation around here. It may come to that.
But first, suppose we do consolidate into one, more active Lodge. We have energy, we build momentum, we start attracting new members. Great!
What will we want to do then? Why, we’ll want to form new Lodges with their own buildings in the same or nearby communities. We’d want those new buildings to be the source of further growth.
So why consolidate now? Let’s apply ourselves to fixing our own *and each other’s* Lodges.
If that fails, we can still merge but at least we’ll have given it a proper try.
I agree with the comments about guarding the West Gate.
But why not make part of our public communication about the tremendous opportunity to help rebuild a centuries-old institution? An institution which can offer so much to society?
After falling membership for so long and a high proportion of inactive v. active members, we need help.
Let’s say so, and attract the men who have a need to build or help rebuild.
I’ve been involved with a couple of mergers, including one that’s in the works right now. Not all Mergers occur because of the failure of a Lodge. The merger of Morton Lodge No. 209 into Robert Morris Lodge No. 97 is a good example. The active members of Morton were good leaders. It’s just that the town changed its dynamic. Morton was a bustling lumber town in the early 20th Century, when the Lodge was chartered. Now it’s just a shadow of what it used to be. In fact, the school’s student population had shrunk so much that Morton’s high school membership ‘merged’ with neighboring White Pass high school to field a football team. Same thing applied to the Masonic Lodge. My two Official Visits as District Deputy in 2009-2011 to that Lodge were the last meeting in the building, and Morton’s final meeting as a Lodge. Robert Morris integrated Morton’s assets and their membership into their own, and indeed became a stronger Lodge for it. A Past Master of Morton Lodge will become Afifi Shrine’s Potentate in the near future.
As the current Merger I’m involved with is still in progress, I prefer not to discuss any details here on this forum, out of respect to the Lodges involved.
As for Lodges surrendering their charter, you can check Sec. 25.05 B.L. of the WMC for how that works, although the Lodge can make donations before they surrender the Charter, such as Scholarship funds.
Forthrighter catches a lot of good points in his comment. I suggest all to read them if they haven’t already.
The answer to this question is actually quite simple. What is best for the fraternity? Having a lodge propped up by dual memberships or consolidating those members into a larger more viable organization? I've gone through 2 mergers. Both for the same reasons. Lack of active membership. Both times the craft benefited. I don't think the towns that the lodges were in even noticed the change. It was sad to see them go, but the combined lodges have become stronger with a renewed sense of purpose.
I think what is best, is probably determined by the Lodge, its history, the reason for closing and what the aspirations of the members of the closing Lodge have, if any. This subject touches on discussions of membership we have previously discussed. What we are dealing with here, in part, is the aging of the post WW2 surge. and a failure at the West Gate. If we integrated the traditions of fellowship, charity and cooperation that the Craft teaches these issues could be handled in the spirit of Masonry. If not, they are almost unresolvable. its really that simple.
I've been involved in closing two Lodges: my own as we were evicted because our landlord could not sacrifice his downstairs drugstore business when the city would force him to bring his entire building up to modern code(100 year-old building) after our plumbing failed. We consolidated with Deer Park Lodge 134 only 30 minutes south. This was very difficult due to the notification process, internal politics period, and politics with the receiving lodge. But, we got 'er done as I was the Secretary and like to get things done. The second was only several months ago when Colville 50 ran out of steam and asked to consolidate with us down South in Deer Park (Boyer Mountain). Colville was the oldest lodge in the northeast sector with a fantastic history but slowly ran low on steam. Fortunately, they chose to consolidate and it was a relatively simple process until the Covid19 panic came along. Anyway, thanks to the Godlike powers bestowed on the Grand Master, he managed to travel East and we got 'er done! Now, all is well.
I think consolidations are the best avenue, however the task results in a large loss of members as Masons do not care for change and often refuse to drive or travel a few minutes further to attend meetings in the new location. This is the real cost.
I do not know if it would be cost-effective for Grand Lodge to intervene and attempt to stir up energy from the Lodge members. This attack would be very situational depending on the average ages of the members. The most resistance, on the average, comes from those members exceeding age 85 or so as their "race is already run".
As other's have written, it's a very touchy topic.
I can draw from my professional life, where I specialized in rescue and turn around, as well as in aqusitions, and confirm that the sour feelings are not limited to Masonry. Failure is a bitter pill and it's not uncommon to see passive aggressive behavior, which may have been the cause of the failure, to infect the new endevor. That infection cannot be allowed to take root. To that end, I support the idea of closing the lodge, auditing the books. and cleaning house of members who no longer attend. Dead wood doesn't do anyone any good.
Disposition of the Lodge building can be an opportunity, and not just through a sale of property. Lodges, in the past and some in the present, had the forsight to have a rental on the ground floor. This income stream is critical to survival. If the closing lodge has such and income stream, then the building could be populated by a lodge that doesn't have such an attribute. Building and tenent management should be given to either a professional company, or Brothers with such professional experience. A tamper proof, long term financial plan needs to be put in place to protect the financial assets of the new venture.
Forthrighter makes some excellent points. As WEB Glenn pointed out, one lodge closed its doors and consolidated with another. It was a process fraught with disagreement, dismay, and downright hostility. (I have a complete set of letters, emails, and studies documenting the entire process, if anyone is considering such an action.)
The outcome was a new lodge, constituted in 2017. Members of the lodge that closed were transferred to the new lodge. The old building was and properties were sold to the city, and many of the furnishings were transferred to other lodges in the region. Pictures of Past Masters of the old lodge are hung in the new lodge, and as much as possible of the character of the old lodge has been incorporated into the new.
Four years later, resentments still exist, unfortunately. Brethren from the old lodge do not attend meetings, citing "personal reasons." Such is the way of people who resist change. Masonry at the moment is in a slump, but is in slow recovery. We may never again achieve the surge we experienced post-World War II, but we need to excite and attract younger men to our Fraternity, otherwise we will certainly perish.