My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Dues That Still Don't

bupton52

Moderator
Premium Member
Are there any stipulations in place about a lodge charging more than the per capita from the GL?
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
It's an uphill battle but fixing the dues problem here is a goal of mine. That being said, I don't think I've been to many lodges where the dues were set to cover annual expenses. They are typically set very cheap and the difference is intended to be covered by fundraisers throughout the year.
Part of the problem in GLoTX Lodges is that, in many of them, a distinct minority of Brethren actually pay dues. The majority in many Lodges are either exempt by years of service (50+) or have purchased endowed memberships which, although assuring a revenue stream into perpetuity, do not throw off enough earnings to cover the GL per capita, much less help cover Lodge expenses. It is really unfair to expect those relative few to bear most of the burden by raising their dues.
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
Are there any stipulations in place about a lodge charging more than the per capita from the GL?
No- in fact, they have to in order to pay their bills! The only strictures are that Lodges must charge at least $50/year dues & $30 each/degree, and cannot discriminate among Brethren regarding dues, as stated earlier. Currently, the per capita is about $27.50, excluding exempt members (50+ years service, mentally infirm, military on active duty in war zones)
 

LK600

Premium Member
Part of the problem in GLoTX Lodges is that, in many of them, a distinct minority of Brethren actually pay dues.

Why would a system that is untenable be in effect (though I guess I can think of several reasons... ie fluctuation of membership). I'm also guessing attempts to change this would/are met with unfavorable opinions lol.
 

Bloke

Premium Member
Why would a system that is untenable be in effect (though I guess I can think of several reasons... ie fluctuation of membership). I'm also guessing attempts to change this would/are met with unfavorable opinions lol.

Masonic bodies, esp in the post ww2 boom, are notorious for creating and passing financial problems onto following generations.. but still, does the large membership in this instance actually count for something ?
 

LK600

Premium Member
Here if anyone starts talking about raising dues the older members are outraged and some ever threaten to quit!

Okay, I unfortunately believe I'm about to sounds like a A------, but if brothers are actively working against the best interests of a Lodge, putting said Lodge in danger of potentially going away... after much explanation and articulating the troubles, wouldn't the appropriate step be to hold the door for them to actually carry out their threat? (Understand I am still on the outside)
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
Why would a system that is untenable be in effect (though I guess I can think of several reasons... ie fluctuation of membership). I'm also guessing attempts to change this would/are met with unfavorable opinions lol.
A couple of years ago, there was a proposal to raise the dues exemption from 50 to 60 years of service- it crashed & burned @ Grand Lodge. Also, at the time the endowed membership program was initiated, interest rates were much higher than they are today, & the endowments threw off much greater returns. To unwind the program, the Lodges would not only have to give up the returns in perpetuity, but Grand Lodge would have sell the investments into which the principal funds were placed, and return the proceeds to the Brethren who provided them to begin with. Just don't see that happening, to be realistic.
 

JJones

Moderator
The problem I see with endowments are that they are too cheap and, as mentioned already, the returns are very low (some years there were no returns at all). I also see the difficulty that would come from doing away with endowments all-together, so the only solution that makes sense to me is to increase their cost.

I mention a formula in the blog post but it's really up to each lodge to decide for themselves, but I think a brother buying an endowment should be a lot less common and a much bigger deal than it is now.

I also agree that raising dues creates a higher financial burden on dues paying brethren but I also feel that fundraisers create a burden on active brethren. Personally, if I feel it's better for everyone that can pay higher dues to pay them, than for the minority of members (you know, the active ones) to hold fundraisers.
 

Ripcord22A

Site Benefactor
The problem I see with endowments are that they are too cheap and, as mentioned already, the returns are very low (some years there were no returns at all). I also see the difficulty that would come from doing away with endowments all-together, so the only solution that makes sense to me is to increase their cost.

I mention a formula in the blog post but it's really up to each lodge to decide for themselves, but I think a brother buying an endowment should be a lot less common and a much bigger deal than it is now.

I also agree that raising dues creates a higher financial burden on dues paying brethren but I also feel that fundraisers create a burden on active brethren. Personally, if I feel it's better for everyone that can pay higher dues to pay them, than for the minority of members (you know, the active ones) to hold fundraisers.
I agree with you on rasing the cost of endowments. You can also stop future endowments but keep what you have, also you can Grandfather in current members, meaning if your dues are 100$ everyone that is a member now keeps paying that, all new members pay the new higher dues

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app
 

Bloke

Premium Member
At least the endowments are invested and have not been used as a part of consolidated revenue... thanks for letting me know that.

The reality is we all have bills to pay. Reading this, it's interesting how many members some USA GLs have, and the inference that many dont have to pay their way.

Is Freemasonry better off with a much larger membership or a smaller one where we all have to pony up ?

Me, I think "fair" is always a good guide when it comes to dues.. its not fair to see a 50 years member on hard times have to leave because they cant afford it after having consistently made a contribution , but so many brothers exploit our benevolence and try (or expect) their membership to be free.. they hit the secretary or master with a hard luck story, and expect others to cover them when they could make a financial contribution...
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
Me, I think "fair" is always a good guide when it comes to dues.. its not fair to see a 50 years member on hard times have to leave because they cant afford it after having consistently made a contribution , but so many brothers exploit our benevolence and try (or expect) their membership to be free.. they hit the secretary or master with a hard luck story, and expect others to cover them when they could make a financial contribution...
Good points. We investigate whenever a Brother requests a deferment.
 

Carl_in_NH

Site Benefactor
I also agree that raising dues creates a higher financial burden on dues paying brethren but I also feel that fundraisers create a burden on active brethren. Personally, if I feel it's better for everyone that can pay higher dues to pay them, than for the minority of members (you know, the active ones) to hold fundraisers.

Very true statements.

Fund raisers are actively engaged in by that small group of brothers I like to refer to as the 'gap closers'. You know, the ones we also refer to as the 'usual suspects' - the brothers that are always there turning the key in the lock and making the Lodge function. In a lodge of 50 members, I'd say there are typically between 3 and 6 such brothers - at least based on my observations of local lodges.

This small group takes on the roles required to take up the slack and close the financial gap created by other brothers that are paying what are artificially low dues based not upon the reality of operational costs involved, but rather some perceived notion of what membership should cost. These gap-closer brothers tend to burn out and disappear after awhile, as one grows weary supporting yet another house and all the burdens that come with that demand.

For decades, our dues and initiation fees were specifically called out by numerical dollar value in our bylaws. Changing them was a hassle, since a bylaw change would be voted upon by the lodge, and then sent to GL for approval. By the time you went through the exercise of getting them changed, the amount specified was already out of date. We've changed our bylaws to specify a yearly evaluation of the dues and initiation fees by a committee (consisting of officers (3) and members of the lodge (2)). This should alleviate the issue of requesting changes, but still requires the lodge to approve the committee's recommendation by vote. I'm truly hopeful that this additional freedom will help steer thing in the direction of dues that pay the bills.

Truth be known, if the GL apportionment stays the same our dues would have to double to pay our bills without fund raisers. As you can imagine, there are screams of revolt at the mention of such an increase. Myself, I don't find it to be all that bad to say that Masonry will cost me $20 a month instead of $10. I'd rather do that as opposed to keep rowing upstream in all those fund raisers.

In closing, I'd like to mention my favorite retort to those brothers that continually tell us that making the dues cover our costs would 'cost us half our membership'. If we doubled our dues and lost half our members we would _still have more money_ in our coffers to pay the bills because we'd only have half the GL apportionment to pay. Other lodges in our area that have made 'large' increases in dues haven't suffered that drastically in terms of loss - one lodge with 170 members lost two brothers through demit. It's something to think about.
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
In closing, I'd like to mention my favorite retort to those brothers that continually tell us that making the dues cover our costs would 'cost us half our membership'. If we doubled our dues and lost half our members we would _still have more money_ in our coffers to pay the bills because we'd only have half the GL apportionment to pay. Other lodges in our area that have made 'large' increases in dues haven't suffered that drastically in terms of loss - one lodge with 170 members lost two brothers through demit. It's something to think about.
Good point!
 
Top