Per Capita for Grand Lodge of Texas

[owls84]

I also voted yes to the increase. I keep hearing the older brothers say that the GL needs to tighten their belts. What makes you think they haven't cut as many corners as they can before they asked for the increase?

The budget and expense report that I posted earlier is what I am using as a tool to measure. It is full of additional areas to cut. WE were real quick to cut the areas that are needed but no one has even analyzed the programs that we do for success. We analyze everything and if it is not value added then get rid of it. Half of the deficit is the Texas Mason Magazine. If we are charging for registration packets this year at Grand Lodge because they are getting thrown away why are we not charging for this publication because I know more of those are going to waste.

The facts are there but you have to research. No one has a problem with supporting Grand Lodge but you need to prove to me that it is needed. No city would ask for a tax increase without cutting the budget to the minimum. The last thing to get raised is the taxes and this is no different.

 

[rhitland]

I also voted yes to the increase. I keep hearing the older brothers say that the GL needs to tighten their belts. What makes you think they haven't cut as many corners as they can before they asked for the increase? Think about it. The endowments haven't made anything in 3 years, no investments have made anything and membership is down by 1/3 compared to 1997 when the last increase was voted.

I've heard the argument that if we raise the per capita we will spell the end of small lodges that are struggling now. I think we short change ourselves. I am retired and an endowed member of my lodge and would be willing to pay an additional annual amount to keep the GL going.

I feel that the response to any new request by some members is automatically a knee jerk reaction of a resounding "NO".

Brothers we have to be realistic. If we don't authorize an increase and an automatic increase of some small percentage each year we could lose the GL. Yes, it can happen. What else can they do if and when they run out of money?

Since I'm stirring the pot. Why not give some thought to the cost of upkeep of the GL building. It needs a new roof, rewiring, plumbing, and air-conditioning. The Waco Symphony backed out of an agreement 2 years ago to share the cost of upkeep so they could use the building because the up front costs were going to be too high. Can we continue to use a building for 6 to 9 days a year for gatherings and the rest of the year use this huge building for offices, library and museum?
Sooner or later this issue will have to be addressed.

If a proper budget was proposed to allocate money for that building I would support it. I would say present that a resolution next year Brother mac and if you are unable convince your lodge or a PM of the need for it and I am sure you will get the support you need. Lets stop dancing around the issues and do something about it but as been alluded to here it has to be a real effort and not just a thrown together to say you made an effort. Those days are gone if they ever existed in Masonry. It is going to take some well laid plains on which the utmost exertion of human genius will have to be applied.

 

[tomasball]

If a proper budget was proposed to allocate money for that building I would support it.

The difficulty there is that the building is owned by the Masonic Library and Museum Inc. I think item 6360 on the budget we've been discussing, "Reimbursement for Use of Facilities"...$150,000...is the Grand Lodge of Texas paying for upkeep of the Grand Lodge Building.

 

[rhitland]

Here at the Fort Worth Masonic Temple we have the exact same set up as it is legally the Fort Worth Masonic Library and Museum but that has not stopped them from creating a $25 dollar per capita of its own that is charged to each blue lodge and appendant body in the building for maintenance and upkeep. It may take a little dressing on paper to say one charge is per-capita to Grand Lodge and one is to the Masonic Library and Museum for upkeep. I am sure it will be tricky to make it happen but that is where the genius part comes in and as the genius Albert Einstein so eloquently put it "I am is no smarter than anybody else I just spend more time looking into the problem."

 

[macjames53]

Well, let's not oversimplify a complex situation. The finance committee is composed of brothers well versed in these matters. And, sooner or later, we will have to address the facts.
Why do we think the GL is immune to the financial woes that have wreaked such havoc in the financial world? One of these days there will be a called conclave and we will be given an ultimatum, do something or watch the demise of our order.
Why do we think we are immune to such a reality? The world is a very different place for us than it was even 50 years ago. We either change with reality or go the way of the Elks and Woodmen of the World. Don't for an instant believe that it can't happen. I'm sure these men believed their fraternities were immune also. Right up until they ceased to exist.
I don't want to even contemplate this possibility, especially on my watch.

 

[Dave in Waco]

IMHO, it has nothing to do with how well versed the brothers of the Finance Committee are or aren't in these matters. Anyone can lose money or have a shortfall regardless of their experience and gifts. The fault I find is that if we were to look back, we would find where the GL has been trimming the fat to make budget for some time. The first time you have to trim the budget, they should have been looking to start making a proactive change to slow start raising the per capita. I believe I remember hearing that per capita hasn't changed in more then a couple of decades. That's just poor planning. I know I can't live on what I made 20 years ago or even 10.

GL also has more money then you think squirrelled away. They don't want to touch that money, which I can't blame them since it is our future security. The money they are short is in their operating budget. At one time, they could pay for it all from per capita, but more and more they are having to dig into that security. GL just needs to either find a way to generate more income for operating expenses, trim the budget more, and/or raise our per capita. But they are just now addressing a problem that has been building for many years already.

I think the main point now is damage control, but the damage control they are doing is putting it all back on the members and Lodges. It's kind of like, "Yeah we messed up and weren't keeping a good eye on this so now we are in the hole, and it's your responsibility to get us out of it."

 

[MacFie]

Some of the guys last night were talking, what about a 3% increase every year until we're at a happy medium? If the Grand Lodge thinks it's in trouble right now, then it should wait to see what happens with all these lodges who are paying yearly endowment fees, and are losing money on the endowment fee, and have nowhere near enough current paying members for this, all go bankrupt. I am guessing that there is no law stating that if a lodge has to disband it's 200 endowed members yearly fees have to get paid by the nearest lodge? Of course not, it's just money the GL it's recieving anymore. And, with the massive decline in membership, it seems like this may happen to a LOT of lodges. This make sense?

 

[Bill Lins]

I am guessing that there is no law stating that if a lodge has to disband it's 200 endowed members yearly fees have to get paid by the nearest lodge?

As best as I can tell, when a Lodge demises, its members become unaffiliated Masons, unless they are plural members of another Lodge. As unaffiliated Masons, I believe that neither they nor any Lodge are liable to GL for their per capita.

Art. 260. (300). Suspended Lodge: Status of Members.

The status of the members of a suspended Lodge shall remain unchanged until the charter is restored, or the Lodge demises. All unpaid dues of members accruing prior to the suspension of a Lodge, or subsequent thereto, may be paid to the Grand Secretary and his receipt taken therefor. Said receipt shall have the same
force and effect as if the dues were paid to his Lodge, but shall not operate as a dimit or certificate of good standing.

Art. 373. (410). Non-Affiliates: Privileges Allowed and Denied.

An unaffiliated Mason, holding a dimit or its equivalent granted by a regular Lodge or the authorized Grand Secretary of this or any other Grand Jurisdiction with which we are in fraternal relations, may:
1. Visit a Lodge as provided in Art. 382.
2. Sign a petition for a new Lodge Under Dispensation (Art. 184), or for a new chartered Lodge (Art. 205) or affiliate with any Lodge in this State; provided that such unaffiliate, in any case, is domiciled in this Grand Jurisdiction.
3. March in a Funeral or other Masonic Procession or appear Masonically clothed at a Masonic funeral, when properly accredited and permitted by the Worshipful Master, upon satisfactorily accounting for his non-affiliation.

He shall not:
1. Preside over or fill any station or place in any Lodge.
2. Confer, or otherwise participate in conferring any degree.
3. Vote by ballot or otherwise on any matter coming before any Lodge, or lodge any protest whatever.
4. Address the Lodge or speak upon any matter before it, unless invited thereto by the Master presiding.
5. Participate in any official capacity, or in any organization or body whose membership is limited to Master Masons.

Unaffiliated Masons are amenable to Masonic Law and subject to Masonic discipline. (See Art. 495.)

 

[MacFie]

Ok I see that, but see what I mean about the money loss to the GL? Right now at least the lodges are managing to work miracles to pay for the 10x actual paid membership for endowed members. I think this is a fair thing to think about when we talk about doubling fees due to the GL, or will the GL not raise endowed members costs for the lodges?

 

[Dave in Waco]

GL has no diret control over endowment costs. The individual Lodges set their own endowment amounts. GL does have a set minimum of $500 for an endowment and a few other parameters, but they don't care if your Lodges sets the endowment for $500 or $50,000. Although I've never heard of one at $50,000, I do know of a Lodge that set theirs at $10,000 to discourage people buying endowments.

 

[MacFie]

Yeah that's not what I meant, sorry for the poor meaning. When someone is endowed, their yearly per capita to the GL still has to be paid by the lodge they were endowed to. So when I mean not raise endowed member costs, I meant specifically, the per capita that is due from the lodges barely getting by paying them right now.

 

[Dave in Waco]

The Lodge is responsible for the per capita of all its members. So endowed member per capita goes up as well. That's one reason why we have 3 out of 23 resolutions this year dealing with the per capita for endowed members. The raise for the endowed members wouldn't be that big of deal if the Lodges were getting money back from GL from the endowments, but currently we are not.

Now I was told that it was legal for Lodges to institute a per capita fee for endowed members. So that their dues are paid, but they still have to pay the per capita. Of course in most Lodges, that would go over worse then the per capita increase.

 

[MacFie]

Yeah in some, I know that a few, without even doing any increase in the per capita, have had to call out all members, and have had a good chunk of them volunteer to pay their per capita.

 

[Dave in Waco]

When you really look at things, $10.25 is not a huge increase. It's just so many Lodges were sold on the idea that the endowments were going to take care of members being able to have all their dues paid without the Lodge being out any money. Instead, none of it is getting covered by the endowments right now, and the Lodge is out not only the money for the per capita, but it's also not getting their dues money paid by the endowment fund either.

I know of more then a few who feel they were either misled or even out and out lied to by GL on the endowments. Personally, I think GL should dissolve the Endowment Fund, send the Lodges all their endowments back, lower the per capita increase maybe to $3.25, and keep the interest earned that hasn't been distributed on the Endowment Fund to make up the difference on the per capita increase. Then instituted a slight annual Cost of Living increase into the per capita of say 2%.

But it would be a way for the Lodges to recoup some of the money lost. GL would get their operating budget. Plus they would get an increase in the per capita but without really cutting into the Lodges themselves. GL would also get a gradual increase to provide for their operating budget without having to make a big jump.

 

[Bill Lins]

Ok I see that, but see what I mean about the money loss to the GL? Right now at least the lodges are managing to work miracles to pay for the 10x actual paid membership for endowed members. I think this is a fair thing to think about when we talk about doubling fees due to the GL, or will the GL not raise endowed members costs for the lodges?

Bro. McFie, I think you may be confusing "endowments" with the "per capita", which is the fee per member that each Lodge must pay GL each year. A Lodge must pay the per capita on both dues-paying & endowed members even though it has not received a return on the endowments for 2 years now. I know of one area Lodge that, up until last year, received a large enough return on endowments to cover the per capita for every member of the Lodge. We're talking about roughly $1200.00/year. The lack of a return is putting a major hurt on them now, but it's not the fault of the endowed members.

 

[MacFie]

Bro. McFie, I think you may be confusing "endowments" with the "per capita", which is the fee per member that each Lodge must pay GL each year. A Lodge must pay the per capita on both dues-paying & endowed members even though it has not received a return on the endowments for 2 years now. I know of one area Lodge that, up until last year, received a large enough return on endowments to cover the per capita for every member of the Lodge. We're talking about roughly $1200.00/year. The lack of a return is putting a major hurt on them now, but it's not the fault of the endowed members.

Actually I was just typing poorly...was trying to say the same thing you just did!!

 

[rhitland]

Brother Dave to things; First on charging endowed members a per capita, I was actually told that was illegal by somebody and that you had to ask for donations from them? I would love to know that I was told wrong and you can charge an endowed member? I will look into that.
Second I was also told the Endowed Fund was not paying because each original $100 invested is now worth $86 and change (give or take) and if we "cashed it out" we take a $15 hit on every $100 the lodge invested?
I am not sure who to believe anymore with so much misinformation going around but I like to hear what others have heard on the status of the fund?
Not picking on you Bro just funny so much different information is out there and I would like to find a bottom for it.

 

[Bill Lins]

First on charging endowed members a per capita, I was actually told that was illegal by somebody and that you had to ask for donations from them? I would love to know that I was told wrong and you can charge an endowed member?

You were told right.

"Art. 318a. Endowed Membership.

1. Any member in good standing in a Lodge of this Grand Jurisdiction whose dues are paid to date may purchase an endowed membership for the benefit of such Lodge (hereinafter referred to as the “Endowed Lodge”), and be thereby relieved from the further payment of dues in the Endowed Lodge effective as of the date such purchase is made." (italics mine)

You'll note that it reads "be", not "may be". In addition, the Endowed Membership Certificate reads, in part, "and is thereby relieved from the payment of further dues in said Lodge".

I was also told the Endowed Fund was not paying because each original $100 invested is now worth $86 and change (give or take) and if we "cashed it out" we take a $15 hit on every $100 the lodge invested?

Every year each Lodge receives a report on the current value of the endowments that particular Lodge has. This figure is needed to complete the Minimum Audit Report Form #71 each Lodge is required to file with Grand Lodge. This past year GL reported that each $100 unit in the Endowment Fund has a current value of $86.59

All I can say is that the investments made & controlled by my Lodge have outperformed the Endowment Fund by a wide margin.

 

[Blake Bowden]

If this is shot down, what will happen to the Grand Lodge?

a. The Grand Lodge will collapse, women and children will go hungry. Masonry will fade into history.

or

b. The Grand Lodge will be forced to make cuts to it's budget, re-examine their investments and dip into the reserves it has.

UM, I vote B:

Grand Masters Portrait: $1,000.00 (Seriously, $1000?)
PGM's Office Expense: $3,341.66 (Why? They're PGMS!)
DDGM Aprons: $10,215.00 (In this economy, they should pay for their own)
PGM Jewels: $9,474.41 (Did I read that correctly? $9k+!!!!)
Telephone: $6,874.84 ($572.90 PER MONTH???)
Registration Badges: $533.34
Sam Houston Statues: $12,170.00 (What?)
"List" of Masonic Lodges: $5,704.27 (Isn't this available for free online?)
DI Name Badges: $705.00 (In this economy, they should pay for their own)
Texas Mason Magazine: $128,167.85 (Axe it, even if temporary)
Masonic Youth Weekend: $27,401.69 (If Blue Lodge can't survive, none of the appendant bodies will either)
Coffee Shop Expense: $155.67 (I'll take a caramel macchiato. Seriously...coffee expense??)
Masonic Service Assn: $3,787.22 (Great service, BUT NONE of their STB's are sent to my Lodge or published in the TMM cut it)

Total: $209,530.95

 

[Bill Lins]

Blake- While I agree with your assessment for the most part I must disagree with your contention that DDGM's should pay for their own regalia. Being a DDGM is an expensive undertaking as it is. They get no reimbursement for the extensive travel most of them must do (for instance, my district has 8 Lodges spread out over 3 counties) nor for postage or office supplies they must have to perform their duties. In addition, they have to purchase the GM's pins, coins, & other trinkets they give away out of their own pockets- again, no reimbursement. The only thing they get for their service, other than the pleasure of serving the Craft, is the apron. Seems a small price to pay for the work they do & the expenses they incur.