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 homele…
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?
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?
I agree with this.