Are Grand Officers paid ?

[Glen Cook]

In 2008, the GM of Utah received $1,000. That covered GM Conference. That was I t. The Grand Lecturer who covers a large state received a similar amount. The Grand Secretary and office staff were paid. I sponsored legislation giving the DGM and wardens $500 IIRC.

OTOH, the GM of MASS received six figures, as he was running a company.

 

[Bill Lins]

They aren't paid. It's strictly volunteer and it's my understanding that GL officers are responsible for paying for their own travel expenses, meals, and so forth. Now, in clandy GLs...this is all very possible.

Under GLoTX, much, if not all, of the GM's and other Grand Line officers' expenses are paid by the Grand Lodge.

 

[Bill Lins]

I am an appointed York Rite Grand Officer this year, and I didn't get a dime. I got some gifts from the GHP and ate for free at the nine district meetings we had across the state. All my lodging, gas, and food along the way came out of my pocket.

That's not unusual for appointed officers.

 

[JJones]

Under GLoTX, much, if not all, of the GM's and other Grand Line officers' expenses are paid by the Grand Lodge.

I stand corrected!

 

[KSigMason]

A few Grand Lodge officers in Idaho are paid; the Grand Secretary is and some Grand officers have travel expenses covered.

 

[dfreybur]

Sorry, but can you confirm the above - that GL officers all need to deposit $50K ? Little in Freemasonry surprises me... but that did...

Some caveats - I moved out of California in 2001 so I suspect they have done an inflation adjustment since then. The earnest deposit only applies to those applying to run for Senior Grand Deacon as that's the first chair in the progressive grand line for California. Appointed grand officers not in the progressive line are not required to demonstrate financial means.

I knew Brothers who put down the earnest money to throw their hat into the ring for the progressive grand line and one who applied then learned of the earnest money requirement. In California the Senior Grand Deacon is appointed by the incoming Grand Master based on the recommendation of the GL's nominating committee of PGM and other long term Masonic activists.

I knew brothers who were appointed to grand chairs who were not required to put down any money. They also were only expected to travel half the state. Often Brothers are appointed to grand chairs so the future members of the nominating committee can get to know them better and vet them but every year there are several who are in a chair that will only hold that one grand chair ever.

Masonry at the local level can afford to not consider means testing, but at least in California a man can't be homeless when he petitions so it is considered to some extent. At the grand lodge level it's not feasible in states where the chairs are not paid. At the local level we only need to require that a man be self supporting with work. At the grand level there is no choice but to require that brothers be self supporting without work.

 

[AndreAshlar]

Some caveats - I moved out of California in 2001 so I suspect they have done an inflation adjustment since then. The earnest deposit only applies to those applying to run for Senior Grand Deacon as that's the first chair in the progressive grand line for California. Appointed grand officers not in the progressive line are not required to demonstrate financial means.

I knew Brothers who put down the earnest money to through their hat into the ring for the progressive grand line and one who applied then learned of the earnest money requirement. In California the Senior Grand Deacon is appointed by the incoming Grand Master based on the recommendation of the GL's nominating committee of PGM and other long term Masonic activists.

I knew brothers who were appointed to grand chairs who were not required to put down any money. They also were only expected to travel half the state. Often Brothers are appointed to grand chairs so the future members of the nominating committee can get to know them better and vet them but every year there are several who are in a chair that will only hold that one grand chair ever.

Masonry at the local level can afford to not consider means testing, but at least in California a man can't be homeless when he petitions so it is considered to some extent. At the grand lodge level it's not feasible in states where the chairs are not paid. At the local level we only need to require that a man be self supporting with work. At the grand level there is no choice but to require that brothers be self supporting without work.

Interesting

 

[Warrior1256]

Anyone know if anyone in The GL in Kentucky is paid or, at least, have their expenses paid?

 

[AndreAshlar]

Most are. And they should be.

 

[The Traveling Man]

Most are. And they should be.

I feel the exact same way. I feel that should get paid a lot more than their current salaries.

 

[Dontrell Stroman]

I feel the exact same way. I feel that should get paid a lot more than their current salaries.

Why ?

 

[dfreybur]

Why ?

On the one hand, if the equality we practice at the craft lodge level were also practiced at the grand lodge level, we would have members of the grand progressive line who could not afford the huge not reimbursed out of pocket expense it takes to be a MW GM.

On the other hand at the original 1717 meeting there was a goal to come under the patronage of a member of the royal family. This may have been at least partially because of that financial reason.

At the blue lodge level we can afford to see the inner attributes of a man. At the grand lodge level we can not afford that freedom. Unless we pay a LOT more dues and they go to hired grand line.

 

[Glen Cook]

Why ?

Fair question. You don't want to "de-select" a qualified man, even a great leader, from GL office based on the ability to meet the financial requirements. You are expected to not just travel within your jurisdiction (which in the American West involves driving hundreds of miles) but also neighboring jurisdictions and Grand Masters Conference.

FWIW, this is also a concern for those in regional and national offices. This June and July, I have meetings in Buffalo, TN, NM , CO and Dallas. Only TN is paid for.

 

[Dontrell Stroman]

Fair question. You don't want to "de-select" a qualified man, even a great leader, from GL office based on the ability to meet the financial requirements. You are expected to not just travel within your jurisdiction (which in the American West involves driving hundreds of miles) but also neighboring jurisdictions and Grand Masters Conference.

FWIW, this is also a concern for those in regional and national offices. This June and July, I have meetings in Buffalo, TN, NM , CO and Dallas. Only TN is paid for.

Makes sense. I guess my stance is, as long as they are working and not just being paid to be in the position I'm okay with it.

 

[Companion Joe]

I think a better way to put it is grand officers should "have their expenses covered" rather than "paid" (except for the few office type positions that are actually a full time job).

 

[The Traveling Man]

Why ?

Because it is a job. It takes a lot of work and dedication to effectively hold an office. I don't know if I would expect Every officer to be paid (simply because I haven't given it much thought), but someone like a Secretary should definitely get paid. They have to be on call to answer questions, both in person, by phone, FAX and email. Many times they head up different committees, converse with other Lodges and Grand Lodges. They are the go-to man for many things. Their attendance is more important than probably any other officer in the Lodge. Then I start thinking "Well is it fair to pay a secretary and not the WM that he works for?" And I'm just speaking at the Lodge level. If you get into the Grand Lodge level there's even more involved and the pay should be increased.

Another post mentioned having expenses paid rather than being paid. But I feel it isn't so much about the expense, but rather the time and effort put into it. Since someone also mentioned traveling I will use that as an example: When someone asks for a ride from someone and the person giving the ride asks for gas money, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for the person to ask for $10 or so. Since they are only driving 10 miles and the average car gets 20 miles to the gallon should the person only ask for $0.90 (half of the price of 1 gallon of gas)? No, that $10 or so isn't for the gas, it's for the inconvenience, the time spent doing something, the wear and tear on the vehicle, etc.

 

[Dontrell Stroman]

Because it is a job. It takes a lot of work and dedication to effectively hold an office. I don't know if I would expect Every officer to be paid (simply because I haven't given it much thought), but someone like a Secretary should definitely get paid. They have to be on call to answer questions, both in person, by phone, FAX and email. Many times they head up different committees, converse with other Lodges and Grand Lodges. They are the go-to man for many things. Their attendance is more important than probably any other officer in the Lodge. Then I start thinking "Well is it fair to pay a secretary and not the WM that he works for?" And I'm just speaking at the Lodge level. If you get into the Grand Lodge level there's even more involved and the pay should be increased.

Another post mentioned having expenses paid rather than being paid. But I feel it isn't so much about the expense, but rather the time and effort put into it. Since someone also mentioned traveling I will use that as an example: When someone asks for a ride from someone and the person giving the ride asks for gas money, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for the person to ask for $10 or so. Since they are only driving 10 miles and the average car gets 20 miles to the gallon should the person only ask for $0.90 (half of the price of 1 gallon of gas)? No, that $10 or so isn't for the gas, it's for the inconvenience, the time spent doing something, the wear and tear on the vehicle, etc.

If that's the case everyone should be getting paid for time they put in. Some brothers hold no position, but put more time and work in than the secretary. I understand when it comes to the GL, but to a point. I don't believe they should be paid to the point where they say I'm not being paid enough, time to raise taxes. I see freemasonry as a brotherhood, it's something I enjoy and something I want to be apart of. Speaking from myself, I wouldn't accept money for what I do in freemasonry. Same goes for my church.

 

[Dontrell Stroman]

Because it is a job. It takes a lot of work and dedication to effectively hold an office. I don't know if I would expect Every officer to be paid (simply because I haven't given it much thought), but someone like a Secretary should definitely get paid. They have to be on call to answer questions, both in person, by phone, FAX and email. Many times they head up different committees, converse with other Lodges and Grand Lodges. They are the go-to man for many things. Their attendance is more important than probably any other officer in the Lodge. Then I start thinking "Well is it fair to pay a secretary and not the WM that he works for?" And I'm just speaking at the Lodge level. If you get into the Grand Lodge level there's even more involved and the pay should be increased.

Another post mentioned having expenses paid rather than being paid. But I feel it isn't so much about the expense, but rather the time and effort put into it. Since someone also mentioned traveling I will use that as an example: When someone asks for a ride from someone and the person giving the ride asks for gas money, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for the person to ask for $10 or so. Since they are only driving 10 miles and the average car gets 20 miles to the gallon should the person only ask for $0.90 (half of the price of 1 gallon of gas)? No, that $10 or so isn't for the gas, it's for the inconvenience, the time spent doing something, the wear and tear on the vehicle, etc.

I've never asked for gas money. Again, speaking for myself. I guess that's just the way im wired.

 

[Glen Cook]

If that's the case everyone should be getting paid for time they put in. Some brothers hold no position, but put more time and work in than the secretary. I understand when it comes to the GL, but to a point. I don't believe they should be paid to the point where they say I'm not being paid enough, time to raise taxes. I see freemasonry as a brotherhood, it's something I enjoy and something I want to be apart of. Speaking from myself, I wouldn't accept money for what I do in freemasonry. Same goes for my church.

Well, except for those such as MASS, which requires you actually leave your work for 2-3 years, I agree as to paying for time.

 

[Glen Cook]

I've never asked for gas money. Again, speaking for myself. I guess that's just the way im wired.

So, if the travel expenses are $5,000 a year, do you think that would be out of the reach of some Masons?