In Bro. Pike’s imagining of what Scottish Rite Southern Jurisdiction Craft Lodges would look like1 he contemplated that Lodge Officer positions would hold three year terms. Of course, in our Craft Lodges, we practice one year terms.
To be clear, the Scottish Rite SJ Charters no Craft Lodges, and Pike did not seek for it to do so. Rather he imagined how those Lodges could operate and work, if they did exist, in order to educate Scottish Rite SJ members about what they could have experienced prior to receiving the Fourth Degree.
As a 4 term Master, in a row, I only wanted to serve one year and circumstances, such as COVID, officer line gap, I found myself in a long progressive term. Two years, is fine, finish unfinished work. Having already served in my home lodge in New Mexico, there is something to be said for holding back officers that are not ready to advance. Is moving the line more important than the qualifications of a officer? I wish our craft, needs to have a Lodge committee to test the officer before elections to see if he's ready to move on. I've seen too many people unprepared for their role of eventually being Master. If they don't attend Leadership Conference, they will be crippled and their year in the East will be a disaster. We do need to tighten up officers qualifications, somehow.
In Washington State we have something called the PiLM, Proficiency in Lodge Management. It is an oral and written test. The written test is an online open book test of 100 questions covering the Washington Masonic Code, The Standard Work, and the Lodge Officers Handbook. It is more a tool to help new master masons get used to searching for answers to questions within various references. The oral exam is performed in lodge, the MM is tasked with proving his ability to do the ritual required to run lodge. It is conducted by the district deputy. They are given a degree to work from, then they open/close, call down, call up, go from labor to refreshment and back, etc. The results are sent to grand lodge to be put in the member's records.
The PiLM is not a requirement to become the WM, although I think it should.
I agree. We do need our Lodges to feel comfortable not advancing a man who is not ready for the office ahead. An unprepared, unqualified Master can undo years of progress and hard work in an extremely short period of time. I've seen it happen, and I'm sure that many others have as well.
Several years ago my lodge took a brother from a pillar office and talked with him about his readiness to progress to the East. He agreed to step back and work on his Ashlar. This action taken did not cause him to leave the lodge. He worked hard in his designated position and has since grown in Masonry.
It is great to learn that when your Lodge did that it all worked out well in the end! It must have been handled very well both by the Lodge, and the Brother in question.
The bad: 1-year terms for officers near-on cripples a lodge's ability to do long-term planning (you'll see so much discussion of aligning the line to get a 5-year plan, it's super hard, and frequently doesn't work for any number of reasons)
The good: if you were trying to organize an institution to actively resist change to its core principles, 1 year terms are how you'd do it. Nobody stays in the chair long enough to implement really big changes. Everybody is "re-establishing context". If you wanted to resist a despot getting hold of your lodge and making it impossible for a lodge to breathe, well then you'd set up a rotational line where there's (supposed to be) a new guy every year. Even if you got a crazy master, it'd only last a year and many things he did could be easily undone.
It's like a buffer in the solution that prevents the pH from swinging. The only way you can change anything big is to have a succession of masters of different minds all agree *AND* prioritize the continuance of the thing (tradition, practice, whatever).
Big pros. Big cons. People wonder why Freemasonry has such a problem with "we've always done it this way", well 1-year terms are a part of it. It's hard to change anything for real when leadership can't focus beyond 12 months. Then again: "it's hard to change things" means that it's also hard to whipsaw the institution with bad ideas.
I understand the whole not leaving any one person in power too long, but let's face it, there are many a past-master that still try to control lodges. Additionally, if nobody is willing to step up, you have a master that is in the east for sometimes up to 4-6 years.
I've had years where our lodge knew that there would be one year that we'd have to go through, but we also were confident that no drastic changes would be made; we might just have to endure some challenges that the brother had with public speaking. If things were so severe that you had a crazy Worshipful Master, that's on the shoulders of the brethren who elected him and there's a mechanism to seek oversight by the District Deputy or have the GM appoint a Special Deputy or even remove the Worshipful Master himself.
I see both sides though; moving through 5 chairs is a 5-year process and now, with a younger generation it's a challenge to get them to commit to anything that's long-term, sometimes you're lucky to get them to show up for every meeting throughout the year. I understand work and family commitment conflicts that pop up in life. If you made that 5-year commitment into a 15-year process, I think we'd just be compounding the problem.
On the other hand, it's difficult to accomplish your goals in a year when things move at the speed of masonry. Once thing that I did when I was going through the line, was begin putting administrative processes in place when I was SD and JW. It's important to work with your team as you go through the chairs to get probably 50% of your goals accomplished before you are installed as Master. Is the answer that we have 2-year terms?
If you have people who go through the chairs, just to get "being Master" out of the way, then that's not the right mindset. I do believe that, in WA, it should be a requirement that PiLM certification be obtained NLT being installed as SW.
Your mention of the line changing into a 15 year (or longer in some Lodges) process is something I've thought quite a bit about. People have asked me through the years what I thought about 2 year terms for the GM. I've pointed out to them that in Washington that would turn the process into 9 year total, and honestly I doubt many have the energy or resources to do 9 years in the Grand Line. I certainly don't think that I would have.
While I don't feel one year is enough to really learn, adapt, and work down all the rough edges as a Master. I spent about 3 1/2 years in the East. The half was stepping up while the WM was on extended and unexpected travel for work.
Even with our GL Leadership Retreat, there is no substitute for sitting in the Oriental Chair. My Lodge installs in November. So by the time you have 4 or 5 months of becoming use to doing your job, it's about time to go dark for the summer. Time to prepare the family gatherings for those months. And when we come back, it is just about time for elections.
MWGL of WA also has the Proficiency in Lodge Management as an option for those Brothers in the Line. Maybe some Lodges require that for the incoming Master?
My opinion, would be 2 years in year chair. Give each Brother time to grow, learn and really appreciate that Chair and it's rituals. Three years is quite a long time.
Some Lodges do require the PiLM prior to election for Master. It is an easy enough thing to do in our Jurisdiction. I imagine however that those Lodges that would most benefit from such a requirement are the same Lodges that would never consider implementing it.
Not much different from the Grand Lodge's Leadership Retreat. When a failing Lodge is encountered, it is a sure bet that when you take a look at the Retreat records you'll see that the Lodge hasn't sent any of its officers to the training in years.
I'm on my second year in the East and it seems that it has been that way for way too long. One Brother would be in the East for two years and then the SW would be in the East for two years and the SW would go in the East again for two years. The same two Brothers would switch places every two years and the Lodge stagnated for some time. Little in the way of new ideas materialized. Fortunately, I think I will change that by going to the JD after this year and rotate the whole line between the East and the JD's place. All of them qualified in my opinion to move to the East with fresh ideas.
It is excellent that your Lodge has moved from a place where it only had a couple of guys able to serve as Master to having a line of qualified Masons! It is wonderful to see Lodges make such a turnaround!
Funny, this is exactly what I was entertaining as the subject of my first post! You see, Brazil is a whole different story. I'll give you the bullet points:
- We actually have Scottish Rite Craft Lodge; actually, of our about 3,500 Craft Lodges, I estimate a whooping 90% of them work the Craft Degrees on AASR [we have several others Rites - French or Modern, Adonhiramite, Emulation, York Rite, Shröder, Rectified Scottish Rite, Brazilian... and a few ones that are only practiced on certain states, such as the Hungarian; this is, of course, not mentioning non-regular Freemasonry and their own practices]
- Our terms are usually 2-year long; my own Lodge is an exception, in that we work with 1-year terms with the possibility of a second term if necessary [it has happened 3 times in the last 10 years]; there are very rare Lodges where they work with 4 or 5 years long terms
- Almost no Lodge works with a "succession line" [my own Lodge being an exception again, though the succesion is more expected than mandatory]; the only official requirement is being a 3rd degree Mason, having being part of the Lodge for the previous year and having attended at least half of the meetings
- Almost all Lodges meet weekly; some work twice a month and it's extremely rare to go to a Lodge that meets only once a month; we do not have the tradition of "going dark" during the Summer, though we suspend our work from December, 21st, till January, 20th
- There are several Lodges where it's common for the same Brother to be reelected to the Chair a number of times; the oldest Lodge in my hometown [that sponsors my DeMolay Chapter] had a Worshipful Master that was elected every 10 years for 4 decades [1966, 1976, 1986 and 1996] and another who occupied the Chair for 6 years, then after an interlude, another 4 years.
To answer the question, are 1 year terms too short? Not necessarily; it works for my Lodge because we have a "master plan" that we follow and each successive Worshipful Master advance it, the Past Masters serving as councillors. I think the experience of being in charge is quite important, as is the experience of returning to the columns. I am not sure how your by-laws and regulations work, but maybe you could experiment a bit? Longer or shorter terms, more or less frequent meetings [obviously, those meeting have to have a purpose], succession line or not... the essence of Freemasonry must be preserved, not it's temporary arrangements.
It is wonderful to get your perspective from Brazil. I've been told that in your country, Freemasonry is growing quite rapidly. Is that the case?
The Scottish Rite Craft Lodges I am familiar with in Mexico also meet weekly, while most Lodges in my Jurisdiction meet monthly, or less if they go dark. I have often wondered if we meet too infrequently. When I was Master of my Lodge, the Lodge still only met once a month, but we did something every single Monday. Some kind of event or another, social events, educational events, we did a wide variety of things. But I think that coming together once a week really helped to build stronger bonds in the Lodge, and the Lodge was thriving.
As for Brazil, it is hard to summarize the situation in numbers, as these are not as reliable as we would like it to be. I would say we are somewhat stable in our numbers, with a downward tendency in the long run [due to several factors, such as lack of renewal, internal problems, poor governance...]. This is a very sensitive subject and I would have to approach it with great care, since it envolves the worse parts of Brazilian Freemasonry history.
Meeting once a week is good for creating a strong habit and familiarity; however, if the meetings are purposeless, it is a strong poison that acts quickly, driving away the most interesting members of the Craft [who have much better things to do with their limited time] and leaving only those who have nowhere else to go. Two-edged sword.
Thank you for this perspective on weekly meetings. Given what you say, it would seem that when my Lodge used to hold to that schedule, we probably did it well. Having only the one actual formal meeting per month, with three interesting, informal things the other weeks. And of course, once in awhile there was a 5th Monday, we always did something great when those came around as no other Lodge in the Jurisdiction was competing on that day, so we could get lots of visitors.
Seeing the previous comments and reflecting on my own experience one year isn't enough and in rare instances three years is pretty good. But the rare instances are rare because everything in the Lodge has to function really well. Membership development is strong, programs are interesting and engaging, officer line is full and stable, and ritual and degree performance is solid. Even then, I feel that there should be no more than the expectation of multi-year terms. The annual election process provides a ripcord that at times may be needed.
Not to get too far in the weeds on what was essentially a practical question, but I have wondered, at times, if the men who created the system we now work set the short one year terms as a kind of symbolic lesson. Everything else in Freemasonry is symbolic, and I've wondered if the short terms could be as well.
The year in the East passes extremely quickly, so one must work quite diligently if he is to accomplish what he hopes to accomplish. Could that not be teaching us a lesson? Life passes extremely quickly. The minutes we waste can never be recovered, so we must be diligent if we hope to achieve what we want to achieve in life.
Looking at the history of the Lodges I have access to the records for, it appears that multi year terms were common in the pre-1920s and as Freemasonry grew, or more importantly as the Lodge grew, one year terms became the norm.
I know of one lodge that had 4 steward positions from the 1930s-1960s to accommodate all the members who desired to advance through the line, that made it a 10 year line, and there was a waiting list for that first spot in the line and it went to the member who seemed to have done the most to prepare himself for the line.
I feel like the dramatic uptick in membership numbers, and more importantly in lodge sizes, may have driven the one year term more than anything else. If lodges had continued to split into new lodges every time they hit ~75 members I think you’d have seen a lot of smaller, tight knit lodges, with longer/multiple terms remaining the norm (you’d also have a lot more closed lodges to look at in the records too, but that’s a different story).
All that said I like your aspirational view of it rather than my coldly pragmatic one, hahaha.
Thank you for this interesting historical perspective! I appreciate it very much.
If one year terms did come about because of our exponential and unsustainable growth during the golden age of fraternalism, then it would certainly make sense, and give justification to going back to the old ways now.
Very interesting perspective. I can only imagine that there would be positive results if that perspective was frequently inculcated to officers as they moved through the line toward the East.
It's an idea that might play very well for Blue Lodge officers. However, I think multi-year terms should be considered for Grand Lodge officers, particularly if there's ever an inclination to right-size our code and refresh our business model (see my previous rants ... I mean posts ... about these issues).
There are a few US grand lodges out there with multi year terms, Pennsylvania, New York, and South Carolina come to mind. I think they are all two year terms. I believe in South Carolina you technically get re-elected for a second year.
Of course multi year terms for Grand Lodge officers are much more common in other countries and in PHA.
Speaking frankly about this. I don't know that I would have had the energy or the resources to handle the Grand Line if it were longer than it is, unless we dramatically reconsidered what our expectations for a Grand Master are. Continually driving back and forth around and across the State, staying in hotels, and eating fast food is remarkably draining, yet Lodges hope and expect to see the GM.
And I'm saying that as a relatively young and healthy GM compared to most. I think we have all seen GM's who looked healthy and hale at their installation, looking badly deteriorated as they left office.
I'm also saying that as a GM who broke with tradition and did not engage in much travel at all to foreign Jurisdictions.
In a nutshell, I think that multi year terms are possible for the elected Grand Lodge Officers, but we as Masons would need to lower our expectations about the amount of travel we look to them to do.
“unless we dramatically reconsidered what our expectations for a Grand Master inare” — this is something I am in firm agreement with. What we expect of Grand Masters now (travel, visit, see and be seen, I’ve heard one refer to himself as a “show pony”) vs what Grand Masters were expected to deal with in the days before travel was “easy” is a pretty wide gulf.
We should all ask ourselves what is the true, constitutional and historical duty of the Grand Master? What is the most effective way for him to meet that duty? And do I really need to see his calendar be full virtually every night for 4 years?
On the glass half full side a longer term could allow for the same amount of travel crammed into one year to be spread over two and open more room for focus on other priorities that each Grand Master might have.
We learned a lot about virtual communication over the last three years. We have yet to figure out how to optimize it. Seems to me that whether it's single or multi year terms that virtual contact make everyone's lives easier. And if used selectively and wisely could even enhance the quality and impact of our various communications.
I am extremely pleased with virtual communication.
As GM, all of my District meetings were held over Zoom, and I think it worked out very well. We got to see the Brothers and communicate our message, but we saved the Fraternity money due to the removal of Grand Lodge Officer travel costs. By doing this the Brothers were able to join without leaving their homes, traveling to a perhaps distant Lodge, losing an entire Friday night or Saturday. I was quite pleased with it.
I was not active in my local Lodge during my time as GM, but after we opened up to in person meetings, it maintained a virtual component to each meeting, and still does so today. It Opens Lodge, Calls Off Session, turns on Zoom, and has a program. When the program is over it turns off Zoom, goes back On Session, and does the business of the Lodge.
There have been quite a few challenges as it has experimented to find the best technological setup, but all in all it has worked out exceptionally well.
I do know that many Brothers have had great concern that if Lodges did this, Masons would stop coming to Lodge. This has not been my Lodge's experience. The only Brothers who show up on Zoom are those Brothers who are way too far away to ever attend in person.
We should not be afraid of new technology, instead we should incorporate it in ways that improve our Craft.
I think you’re onto something there MW, Scots lodges Masters serve a year and afterwards do not retain any title other than Brother. A couple Brothers I spoke to when I visited MLK0 were pretty unimpressed that we kept the Worshipful title as a PM.
Would brothers be more cautious about who they put in a progressive line if they weren't sure of his abilities both in public speaking and the ritual work, let alone management and leadership?
If the WM chair is 2 or more years, how would that affect the progressive line? Would someone who doesn't like cooking put up with sitting as JW for years if all of the chairs terms were likewise lengthened?
I know of plenty of examples of brothers having to sit multiple back to back years to address issues with the progressive line, but that is a fix to a problem, not a policy.
Regardless of term lengths, I think we must give more thought as to who we move into positions of Lodge leadership. We can't simply hand out a chair to a man because it is his turn, and expect our Lodge to thrive. We need Masters who can communicate a vision, inspire, and lead their Masons.
JW is responsible for the meals in the same way that a head coach is responsible for how his team performs and the WM is the General Manager and the Grand Master is the League Commissioner. Stewards are there, under the guidance/direction of the JW, to assist in feeding the brethren.
I lobbied HARD for a designated bank account for our Steward's Fund with a separate debit card that could be used for purchasing meals or groceries if someone volunteered to cook. It was much more transparent and fiscally safer than, "Bro. JW, here is an envelope with [insert dollar amount here] in cash. Collect donations for dinner and make sure the exact amount is there at the end of the year." There are too many variables for loss, theft or leaving the JW to cover the difference if people didn't donate for dinners. I stood firm when I got push back and promised that I would resign my JW chair on the spot, if we didn't pass that motion.
>>>leaving the JW to cover the difference if people didn't donate for dinners. I stood firm when >>>I got push back and promised that I would resign my JW chair on the spot, if we didn't pass >>>that motion.
In some Lodges this is indeed a serious problem. You did the right thing.
Ultimately we need to either set our dues high enough to cover the costs of our meals, or set a price for our meals and ensure that we collect it. As someone who has done a lot of cooking for different Lodges through the years I will say that it is pretty disheartening to provide a good meal, paid for out of one's own pocket, and see someone throw two bucks in the can.
Bad meals are a problem in some Lodges. The only way to make them better is to ensure that we are adequately contributing our resources to them.
I've always been very adamant that the Lodge, itself, should be a self-sustaining entity. The brethren are not banks and it's unfair to consistently rely on donations, be it dinner or annual contributions by others. Having the Lodge pay for it's own expenses, less the incidental reimbursements for very minor things, makes for efficient and accurate audits, paper trail and transparency.
Reimbursing a brother for a non-budgetary expense both counteracts the budget itself, but also places the remainder of the brothers on the spot where they essentially must vote to approve the expense. It's like, "Why even have a budget?"
It's disgusting how temple boards utterly fail the craft by mismanaging properties, neglecting building maintenance, etc. It happens when unqualified men are appointed and elected to these positions for no other reason than to simply fill a vacancy with 98.6 degrees, a pulse, and a dues card. The successful lodges are the ones that get involved in the communities and do fundraising events; they also rent the facilities out for use by the public.
If your lodge is failing, or there are holes in your lines, look at your involvement with the community.
As we right size Lodges down to fewer members, there's far more opportunity to be in line, perhaps too much so. We shove people forward and skip chairs to where a still-new member often sits in the East. Longer terms would easily fix that, and let new members catch up to fill in the line properly.
Agreed. Pushing new Masons into Chairs that they are not ready for leads to all kinds of problems. For the Lodge, and for the Mason. I've seen more than one great new Mason burnt out and leave because the Lodge threw way too much on him before he was ready.
As a bit of trivia, Paul Revere was Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts for three years.
In those days elections were by paper ballot "every voter writing the candidate he thinks best qualified." None of this progressive line stuff. He wasn't even there when he was elected, and he wasn't the first choice originally. The first one elected declined.
Ideally, this is the way it should be done.
But, we should delve deeper into the reason why the progressive line exists. As folks mentioned in this discussion, the progressive line came about because of growing numbers of members and a waiting list developed to try and handle the amount of men wanting to eventually become master of the lodge. But why so many men wanting to be WM? They aren't content to do good work and labor in the quarries instead? Do they think they can do better? Or, is it a ticket to punch in your masonic career? I suspect the latter.
I agree, the progressive line has in many ways been a great harm to our Craft. It is not codified, is simply a tradition. We would do well to get rid of it, or at least greatly lessen the expectations of it. A Mason should be made to understand that if he wants to sit in the East, the Lodge will rightfully expect that he develop the skills necessary prior to election.
I will comment on my experience in the East. At the close of my year I felt in many ways I was just beginning to get comfortable in that Chair. It would also allow for any gaps in the line to be filled over that time period. I see our District Deputies to the Grand Master grow into their position during the second year they are in that office.
My time in the East was basically a two year stint, although I was only WM for a single year.
Almost immediately following my Installation as Senior Warden the WM was struck by a personal tragedy which caused him to step back from the Lodge. So for most of my SW year I was acting as Master. That did give me an excellent opportunity to get things set up for my actual year as Master.
This is only tangentially related to the actual topic of this post, and really more towards footnote 1, but I can’t find a better place to put it :-)
It seems to me as though M:W: Bro Cameron is reading the new SRRS book, Porch and the Middle Chamber, and there are a couple of interesting historical additions to that footnote.
Albert Pike first moved to New Orleand in about 1853, which was a time of significant upheaval in the Grand Lodge of Louisiana and in the Scottish Rite in Louisiana. At that point Pike would have been able to see, and attend, Lodges working that had originally been chartered by Scottish Rite bodies (pre-1812 GLoLA formation) and had been working as such ever since. He would also have seen in that on going schism the disharmony and danger that could result from a Scottish Rite Supreme Council chartering craft lodges, which I believe impacted his view later when he wrote about his ideals for what a Scottish Rite craft Lodge might look like.
Yes indeed Brother, I am running through the Porch and the Middle Chamber now, and that was the impetus for this discussion. It is a truly fascinating book, and much easier to digest than some of Pike's other writings.
As long as we are chatting about it, I'll make another plug for the Scottish Rite Research Society. It is the best value in all of Masonry, and one does not need to be a Scottish Rite Mason to join. Do it! You won't regret it!
I've read quite a lot about early Louisiana Freemasonry since you and I first started talking here many months ago. From Michael Poll and others. It is all extremely interesting!
I feel if you prepare correctly you can accomplish things as a warden and finish things as a past master of your lodge. When I was master I encouraged my officers to start the wheels of any item they wanted to task themselves with as soon as they can. I also spoke with past masters to give them the space to finish any task they feel needed completed. I myself did a 1, 3, 5 and 7 year plan as soon as I became JD. Made my years a little easier.
Thank you for this reminder about the importance of planning. Good planning will indeed lead to success, and the earlier we can begin making those plans, the more effective they will be when we eventually reach the East.
As a 4 term Master, in a row, I only wanted to serve one year and circumstances, such as COVID, officer line gap, I found myself in a long progressive term. Two years, is fine, finish unfinished work. Having already served in my home lodge in New Mexico, there is something to be said for holding back officers that are not ready to advance. Is moving the line more important than the qualifications of a officer? I wish our craft, needs to have a Lodge committee to test the officer before elections to see if he's ready to move on. I've seen too many people unprepared for their role of eventually being Master. If they don't attend Leadership Conference, they will be crippled and their year in the East will be a disaster. We do need to tighten up officers qualifications, somehow.
Brother, where from NM are you? I was raised in Temple 6 in Albuquerque
Sandoval 76
I never got a chance to visit there. Heard it was a nice lodge though!
I remember when you were initiated
In Washington State we have something called the PiLM, Proficiency in Lodge Management. It is an oral and written test. The written test is an online open book test of 100 questions covering the Washington Masonic Code, The Standard Work, and the Lodge Officers Handbook. It is more a tool to help new master masons get used to searching for answers to questions within various references. The oral exam is performed in lodge, the MM is tasked with proving his ability to do the ritual required to run lodge. It is conducted by the district deputy. They are given a degree to work from, then they open/close, call down, call up, go from labor to refreshment and back, etc. The results are sent to grand lodge to be put in the member's records.
The PiLM is not a requirement to become the WM, although I think it should.
In some Lodges it is. They have made it so through their bylaws/standing resolutions.
I agree. We do need our Lodges to feel comfortable not advancing a man who is not ready for the office ahead. An unprepared, unqualified Master can undo years of progress and hard work in an extremely short period of time. I've seen it happen, and I'm sure that many others have as well.
Several years ago my lodge took a brother from a pillar office and talked with him about his readiness to progress to the East. He agreed to step back and work on his Ashlar. This action taken did not cause him to leave the lodge. He worked hard in his designated position and has since grown in Masonry.
It is great to learn that when your Lodge did that it all worked out well in the end! It must have been handled very well both by the Lodge, and the Brother in question.
It's just a straightforward tradeoff.
The bad: 1-year terms for officers near-on cripples a lodge's ability to do long-term planning (you'll see so much discussion of aligning the line to get a 5-year plan, it's super hard, and frequently doesn't work for any number of reasons)
The good: if you were trying to organize an institution to actively resist change to its core principles, 1 year terms are how you'd do it. Nobody stays in the chair long enough to implement really big changes. Everybody is "re-establishing context". If you wanted to resist a despot getting hold of your lodge and making it impossible for a lodge to breathe, well then you'd set up a rotational line where there's (supposed to be) a new guy every year. Even if you got a crazy master, it'd only last a year and many things he did could be easily undone.
It's like a buffer in the solution that prevents the pH from swinging. The only way you can change anything big is to have a succession of masters of different minds all agree *AND* prioritize the continuance of the thing (tradition, practice, whatever).
Big pros. Big cons. People wonder why Freemasonry has such a problem with "we've always done it this way", well 1-year terms are a part of it. It's hard to change anything for real when leadership can't focus beyond 12 months. Then again: "it's hard to change things" means that it's also hard to whipsaw the institution with bad ideas.
I understand the whole not leaving any one person in power too long, but let's face it, there are many a past-master that still try to control lodges. Additionally, if nobody is willing to step up, you have a master that is in the east for sometimes up to 4-6 years.
I've had years where our lodge knew that there would be one year that we'd have to go through, but we also were confident that no drastic changes would be made; we might just have to endure some challenges that the brother had with public speaking. If things were so severe that you had a crazy Worshipful Master, that's on the shoulders of the brethren who elected him and there's a mechanism to seek oversight by the District Deputy or have the GM appoint a Special Deputy or even remove the Worshipful Master himself.
I see both sides though; moving through 5 chairs is a 5-year process and now, with a younger generation it's a challenge to get them to commit to anything that's long-term, sometimes you're lucky to get them to show up for every meeting throughout the year. I understand work and family commitment conflicts that pop up in life. If you made that 5-year commitment into a 15-year process, I think we'd just be compounding the problem.
On the other hand, it's difficult to accomplish your goals in a year when things move at the speed of masonry. Once thing that I did when I was going through the line, was begin putting administrative processes in place when I was SD and JW. It's important to work with your team as you go through the chairs to get probably 50% of your goals accomplished before you are installed as Master. Is the answer that we have 2-year terms?
If you have people who go through the chairs, just to get "being Master" out of the way, then that's not the right mindset. I do believe that, in WA, it should be a requirement that PiLM certification be obtained NLT being installed as SW.
Your mention of the line changing into a 15 year (or longer in some Lodges) process is something I've thought quite a bit about. People have asked me through the years what I thought about 2 year terms for the GM. I've pointed out to them that in Washington that would turn the process into 9 year total, and honestly I doubt many have the energy or resources to do 9 years in the Grand Line. I certainly don't think that I would have.
I've never thought about it in the way you explain here. Thank you for this! It will give me something to contemplate over the next couple of days!
While I don't feel one year is enough to really learn, adapt, and work down all the rough edges as a Master. I spent about 3 1/2 years in the East. The half was stepping up while the WM was on extended and unexpected travel for work.
Even with our GL Leadership Retreat, there is no substitute for sitting in the Oriental Chair. My Lodge installs in November. So by the time you have 4 or 5 months of becoming use to doing your job, it's about time to go dark for the summer. Time to prepare the family gatherings for those months. And when we come back, it is just about time for elections.
MWGL of WA also has the Proficiency in Lodge Management as an option for those Brothers in the Line. Maybe some Lodges require that for the incoming Master?
My opinion, would be 2 years in year chair. Give each Brother time to grow, learn and really appreciate that Chair and it's rituals. Three years is quite a long time.
Some Lodges do require the PiLM prior to election for Master. It is an easy enough thing to do in our Jurisdiction. I imagine however that those Lodges that would most benefit from such a requirement are the same Lodges that would never consider implementing it.
Not much different from the Grand Lodge's Leadership Retreat. When a failing Lodge is encountered, it is a sure bet that when you take a look at the Retreat records you'll see that the Lodge hasn't sent any of its officers to the training in years.
I'm on my second year in the East and it seems that it has been that way for way too long. One Brother would be in the East for two years and then the SW would be in the East for two years and the SW would go in the East again for two years. The same two Brothers would switch places every two years and the Lodge stagnated for some time. Little in the way of new ideas materialized. Fortunately, I think I will change that by going to the JD after this year and rotate the whole line between the East and the JD's place. All of them qualified in my opinion to move to the East with fresh ideas.
It is excellent that your Lodge has moved from a place where it only had a couple of guys able to serve as Master to having a line of qualified Masons! It is wonderful to see Lodges make such a turnaround!
Funny, this is exactly what I was entertaining as the subject of my first post! You see, Brazil is a whole different story. I'll give you the bullet points:
- We actually have Scottish Rite Craft Lodge; actually, of our about 3,500 Craft Lodges, I estimate a whooping 90% of them work the Craft Degrees on AASR [we have several others Rites - French or Modern, Adonhiramite, Emulation, York Rite, Shröder, Rectified Scottish Rite, Brazilian... and a few ones that are only practiced on certain states, such as the Hungarian; this is, of course, not mentioning non-regular Freemasonry and their own practices]
- Our terms are usually 2-year long; my own Lodge is an exception, in that we work with 1-year terms with the possibility of a second term if necessary [it has happened 3 times in the last 10 years]; there are very rare Lodges where they work with 4 or 5 years long terms
- Almost no Lodge works with a "succession line" [my own Lodge being an exception again, though the succesion is more expected than mandatory]; the only official requirement is being a 3rd degree Mason, having being part of the Lodge for the previous year and having attended at least half of the meetings
- Almost all Lodges meet weekly; some work twice a month and it's extremely rare to go to a Lodge that meets only once a month; we do not have the tradition of "going dark" during the Summer, though we suspend our work from December, 21st, till January, 20th
- There are several Lodges where it's common for the same Brother to be reelected to the Chair a number of times; the oldest Lodge in my hometown [that sponsors my DeMolay Chapter] had a Worshipful Master that was elected every 10 years for 4 decades [1966, 1976, 1986 and 1996] and another who occupied the Chair for 6 years, then after an interlude, another 4 years.
To answer the question, are 1 year terms too short? Not necessarily; it works for my Lodge because we have a "master plan" that we follow and each successive Worshipful Master advance it, the Past Masters serving as councillors. I think the experience of being in charge is quite important, as is the experience of returning to the columns. I am not sure how your by-laws and regulations work, but maybe you could experiment a bit? Longer or shorter terms, more or less frequent meetings [obviously, those meeting have to have a purpose], succession line or not... the essence of Freemasonry must be preserved, not it's temporary arrangements.
It is wonderful to get your perspective from Brazil. I've been told that in your country, Freemasonry is growing quite rapidly. Is that the case?
The Scottish Rite Craft Lodges I am familiar with in Mexico also meet weekly, while most Lodges in my Jurisdiction meet monthly, or less if they go dark. I have often wondered if we meet too infrequently. When I was Master of my Lodge, the Lodge still only met once a month, but we did something every single Monday. Some kind of event or another, social events, educational events, we did a wide variety of things. But I think that coming together once a week really helped to build stronger bonds in the Lodge, and the Lodge was thriving.
I look forward to reading your first post!
Thank you for your kind words as always, Brother!
As for Brazil, it is hard to summarize the situation in numbers, as these are not as reliable as we would like it to be. I would say we are somewhat stable in our numbers, with a downward tendency in the long run [due to several factors, such as lack of renewal, internal problems, poor governance...]. This is a very sensitive subject and I would have to approach it with great care, since it envolves the worse parts of Brazilian Freemasonry history.
Meeting once a week is good for creating a strong habit and familiarity; however, if the meetings are purposeless, it is a strong poison that acts quickly, driving away the most interesting members of the Craft [who have much better things to do with their limited time] and leaving only those who have nowhere else to go. Two-edged sword.
Thank you for this perspective on weekly meetings. Given what you say, it would seem that when my Lodge used to hold to that schedule, we probably did it well. Having only the one actual formal meeting per month, with three interesting, informal things the other weeks. And of course, once in awhile there was a 5th Monday, we always did something great when those came around as no other Lodge in the Jurisdiction was competing on that day, so we could get lots of visitors.
Seeing the previous comments and reflecting on my own experience one year isn't enough and in rare instances three years is pretty good. But the rare instances are rare because everything in the Lodge has to function really well. Membership development is strong, programs are interesting and engaging, officer line is full and stable, and ritual and degree performance is solid. Even then, I feel that there should be no more than the expectation of multi-year terms. The annual election process provides a ripcord that at times may be needed.
Not to get too far in the weeds on what was essentially a practical question, but I have wondered, at times, if the men who created the system we now work set the short one year terms as a kind of symbolic lesson. Everything else in Freemasonry is symbolic, and I've wondered if the short terms could be as well.
The year in the East passes extremely quickly, so one must work quite diligently if he is to accomplish what he hopes to accomplish. Could that not be teaching us a lesson? Life passes extremely quickly. The minutes we waste can never be recovered, so we must be diligent if we hope to achieve what we want to achieve in life.
Looking at the history of the Lodges I have access to the records for, it appears that multi year terms were common in the pre-1920s and as Freemasonry grew, or more importantly as the Lodge grew, one year terms became the norm.
I know of one lodge that had 4 steward positions from the 1930s-1960s to accommodate all the members who desired to advance through the line, that made it a 10 year line, and there was a waiting list for that first spot in the line and it went to the member who seemed to have done the most to prepare himself for the line.
I feel like the dramatic uptick in membership numbers, and more importantly in lodge sizes, may have driven the one year term more than anything else. If lodges had continued to split into new lodges every time they hit ~75 members I think you’d have seen a lot of smaller, tight knit lodges, with longer/multiple terms remaining the norm (you’d also have a lot more closed lodges to look at in the records too, but that’s a different story).
All that said I like your aspirational view of it rather than my coldly pragmatic one, hahaha.
Thank you for this interesting historical perspective! I appreciate it very much.
If one year terms did come about because of our exponential and unsustainable growth during the golden age of fraternalism, then it would certainly make sense, and give justification to going back to the old ways now.
Very interesting perspective. I can only imagine that there would be positive results if that perspective was frequently inculcated to officers as they moved through the line toward the East.
It's an idea that might play very well for Blue Lodge officers. However, I think multi-year terms should be considered for Grand Lodge officers, particularly if there's ever an inclination to right-size our code and refresh our business model (see my previous rants ... I mean posts ... about these issues).
There are a few US grand lodges out there with multi year terms, Pennsylvania, New York, and South Carolina come to mind. I think they are all two year terms. I believe in South Carolina you technically get re-elected for a second year.
Of course multi year terms for Grand Lodge officers are much more common in other countries and in PHA.
Speaking frankly about this. I don't know that I would have had the energy or the resources to handle the Grand Line if it were longer than it is, unless we dramatically reconsidered what our expectations for a Grand Master are. Continually driving back and forth around and across the State, staying in hotels, and eating fast food is remarkably draining, yet Lodges hope and expect to see the GM.
And I'm saying that as a relatively young and healthy GM compared to most. I think we have all seen GM's who looked healthy and hale at their installation, looking badly deteriorated as they left office.
I'm also saying that as a GM who broke with tradition and did not engage in much travel at all to foreign Jurisdictions.
In a nutshell, I think that multi year terms are possible for the elected Grand Lodge Officers, but we as Masons would need to lower our expectations about the amount of travel we look to them to do.
“unless we dramatically reconsidered what our expectations for a Grand Master inare” — this is something I am in firm agreement with. What we expect of Grand Masters now (travel, visit, see and be seen, I’ve heard one refer to himself as a “show pony”) vs what Grand Masters were expected to deal with in the days before travel was “easy” is a pretty wide gulf.
We should all ask ourselves what is the true, constitutional and historical duty of the Grand Master? What is the most effective way for him to meet that duty? And do I really need to see his calendar be full virtually every night for 4 years?
On the glass half full side a longer term could allow for the same amount of travel crammed into one year to be spread over two and open more room for focus on other priorities that each Grand Master might have.
Yes. The same amount of travel spread over two years instead of crammed into one, would be an excellent solution.
We learned a lot about virtual communication over the last three years. We have yet to figure out how to optimize it. Seems to me that whether it's single or multi year terms that virtual contact make everyone's lives easier. And if used selectively and wisely could even enhance the quality and impact of our various communications.
I am extremely pleased with virtual communication.
As GM, all of my District meetings were held over Zoom, and I think it worked out very well. We got to see the Brothers and communicate our message, but we saved the Fraternity money due to the removal of Grand Lodge Officer travel costs. By doing this the Brothers were able to join without leaving their homes, traveling to a perhaps distant Lodge, losing an entire Friday night or Saturday. I was quite pleased with it.
I was not active in my local Lodge during my time as GM, but after we opened up to in person meetings, it maintained a virtual component to each meeting, and still does so today. It Opens Lodge, Calls Off Session, turns on Zoom, and has a program. When the program is over it turns off Zoom, goes back On Session, and does the business of the Lodge.
There have been quite a few challenges as it has experimented to find the best technological setup, but all in all it has worked out exceptionally well.
I do know that many Brothers have had great concern that if Lodges did this, Masons would stop coming to Lodge. This has not been my Lodge's experience. The only Brothers who show up on Zoom are those Brothers who are way too far away to ever attend in person.
We should not be afraid of new technology, instead we should incorporate it in ways that improve our Craft.
I think you’re onto something there MW, Scots lodges Masters serve a year and afterwards do not retain any title other than Brother. A couple Brothers I spoke to when I visited MLK0 were pretty unimpressed that we kept the Worshipful title as a PM.
Oh that's so cool. You looked familiar but I couldn't place it
Would brothers be more cautious about who they put in a progressive line if they weren't sure of his abilities both in public speaking and the ritual work, let alone management and leadership?
If the WM chair is 2 or more years, how would that affect the progressive line? Would someone who doesn't like cooking put up with sitting as JW for years if all of the chairs terms were likewise lengthened?
I know of plenty of examples of brothers having to sit multiple back to back years to address issues with the progressive line, but that is a fix to a problem, not a policy.
I am a microwave chef so they never ask me to do any cooking at the Lodge.......or at home.
But I do think it should be 2 years since I have already seen it that way a couple times.
That my Brother, speaks to the need for catering! ;-)
Or microwave burritos. I love me a good microwave burrito!
Regardless of term lengths, I think we must give more thought as to who we move into positions of Lodge leadership. We can't simply hand out a chair to a man because it is his turn, and expect our Lodge to thrive. We need Masters who can communicate a vision, inspire, and lead their Masons.
JW is responsible for the meals in the same way that a head coach is responsible for how his team performs and the WM is the General Manager and the Grand Master is the League Commissioner. Stewards are there, under the guidance/direction of the JW, to assist in feeding the brethren.
I lobbied HARD for a designated bank account for our Steward's Fund with a separate debit card that could be used for purchasing meals or groceries if someone volunteered to cook. It was much more transparent and fiscally safer than, "Bro. JW, here is an envelope with [insert dollar amount here] in cash. Collect donations for dinner and make sure the exact amount is there at the end of the year." There are too many variables for loss, theft or leaving the JW to cover the difference if people didn't donate for dinners. I stood firm when I got push back and promised that I would resign my JW chair on the spot, if we didn't pass that motion.
>>>leaving the JW to cover the difference if people didn't donate for dinners. I stood firm when >>>I got push back and promised that I would resign my JW chair on the spot, if we didn't pass >>>that motion.
In some Lodges this is indeed a serious problem. You did the right thing.
Ultimately we need to either set our dues high enough to cover the costs of our meals, or set a price for our meals and ensure that we collect it. As someone who has done a lot of cooking for different Lodges through the years I will say that it is pretty disheartening to provide a good meal, paid for out of one's own pocket, and see someone throw two bucks in the can.
Bad meals are a problem in some Lodges. The only way to make them better is to ensure that we are adequately contributing our resources to them.
I've always been very adamant that the Lodge, itself, should be a self-sustaining entity. The brethren are not banks and it's unfair to consistently rely on donations, be it dinner or annual contributions by others. Having the Lodge pay for it's own expenses, less the incidental reimbursements for very minor things, makes for efficient and accurate audits, paper trail and transparency.
Reimbursing a brother for a non-budgetary expense both counteracts the budget itself, but also places the remainder of the brothers on the spot where they essentially must vote to approve the expense. It's like, "Why even have a budget?"
It's disgusting how temple boards utterly fail the craft by mismanaging properties, neglecting building maintenance, etc. It happens when unqualified men are appointed and elected to these positions for no other reason than to simply fill a vacancy with 98.6 degrees, a pulse, and a dues card. The successful lodges are the ones that get involved in the communities and do fundraising events; they also rent the facilities out for use by the public.
If your lodge is failing, or there are holes in your lines, look at your involvement with the community.
As we right size Lodges down to fewer members, there's far more opportunity to be in line, perhaps too much so. We shove people forward and skip chairs to where a still-new member often sits in the East. Longer terms would easily fix that, and let new members catch up to fill in the line properly.
Agreed. Pushing new Masons into Chairs that they are not ready for leads to all kinds of problems. For the Lodge, and for the Mason. I've seen more than one great new Mason burnt out and leave because the Lodge threw way too much on him before he was ready.
As a bit of trivia, Paul Revere was Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts for three years.
In those days elections were by paper ballot "every voter writing the candidate he thinks best qualified." None of this progressive line stuff. He wasn't even there when he was elected, and he wasn't the first choice originally. The first one elected declined.
Ideally, this is the way it should be done.
But, we should delve deeper into the reason why the progressive line exists. As folks mentioned in this discussion, the progressive line came about because of growing numbers of members and a waiting list developed to try and handle the amount of men wanting to eventually become master of the lodge. But why so many men wanting to be WM? They aren't content to do good work and labor in the quarries instead? Do they think they can do better? Or, is it a ticket to punch in your masonic career? I suspect the latter.
Interesting bit of trivia! Thank you!
I agree, the progressive line has in many ways been a great harm to our Craft. It is not codified, is simply a tradition. We would do well to get rid of it, or at least greatly lessen the expectations of it. A Mason should be made to understand that if he wants to sit in the East, the Lodge will rightfully expect that he develop the skills necessary prior to election.
I will comment on my experience in the East. At the close of my year I felt in many ways I was just beginning to get comfortable in that Chair. It would also allow for any gaps in the line to be filled over that time period. I see our District Deputies to the Grand Master grow into their position during the second year they are in that office.
My time in the East was basically a two year stint, although I was only WM for a single year.
Almost immediately following my Installation as Senior Warden the WM was struck by a personal tragedy which caused him to step back from the Lodge. So for most of my SW year I was acting as Master. That did give me an excellent opportunity to get things set up for my actual year as Master.
This is only tangentially related to the actual topic of this post, and really more towards footnote 1, but I can’t find a better place to put it :-)
It seems to me as though M:W: Bro Cameron is reading the new SRRS book, Porch and the Middle Chamber, and there are a couple of interesting historical additions to that footnote.
Albert Pike first moved to New Orleand in about 1853, which was a time of significant upheaval in the Grand Lodge of Louisiana and in the Scottish Rite in Louisiana. At that point Pike would have been able to see, and attend, Lodges working that had originally been chartered by Scottish Rite bodies (pre-1812 GLoLA formation) and had been working as such ever since. He would also have seen in that on going schism the disharmony and danger that could result from a Scottish Rite Supreme Council chartering craft lodges, which I believe impacted his view later when he wrote about his ideals for what a Scottish Rite craft Lodge might look like.
Yes indeed Brother, I am running through the Porch and the Middle Chamber now, and that was the impetus for this discussion. It is a truly fascinating book, and much easier to digest than some of Pike's other writings.
As long as we are chatting about it, I'll make another plug for the Scottish Rite Research Society. It is the best value in all of Masonry, and one does not need to be a Scottish Rite Mason to join. Do it! You won't regret it!
I've read quite a lot about early Louisiana Freemasonry since you and I first started talking here many months ago. From Michael Poll and others. It is all extremely interesting!
I feel if you prepare correctly you can accomplish things as a warden and finish things as a past master of your lodge. When I was master I encouraged my officers to start the wheels of any item they wanted to task themselves with as soon as they can. I also spoke with past masters to give them the space to finish any task they feel needed completed. I myself did a 1, 3, 5 and 7 year plan as soon as I became JD. Made my years a little easier.
Thank you for this reminder about the importance of planning. Good planning will indeed lead to success, and the earlier we can begin making those plans, the more effective they will be when we eventually reach the East.