Moving Through the Chairs

[Benton]

Bro. Bowden's post in this thread prompted me thinking and, ultimately, deciding to share my thoughts on the titular subject.

Frankly, as heretical as it is to mention this, I'm not sure that I'm a fan in any way of our system of 'rotating through the chairs' we have in Texas. I do understand many of the benefits, constantly having fresh blood moving in, preventing people from becoming lifetime masters, sharing the workload, etc. But in my mind it has as many drawbacks, often times the flipside of the coin when talking about the benefits.

• It maximizes opportunity for various members to hold office; alternatively, you may be moving members into offices they either don't desire/aren't cut out for.
• It prevents life time masters of lodges, mini-Napoleons, etc (though I think I could argue this one); alternatively, it gives the master one very short year to make changes, which as anyone who has ever been the president of any organization fraternal will know, is not much time at all.
• It keeps things 'fresh' and prevents them from becoming stagnant; frankly, I don't know that I would buy this argument. There are plenty of stagnant lodges out there and the chair system hasn't helped one bit.

Yet I think I can post more negatives:

• It encourages new members to be shoved through the chairs as soon as possible once everyone else has gone through. I'm sure this isn't a problem at every lodge, but how many newly raised Master Masons go more than one year before they're in an office, appointed or otherwise?
• Often Past Masters disappear after their 'year in the East.' Once again, I'm sure its not like this everywhere, and I'm sure many of them disappear for very legitimate reasons, time with family, work, etc. It just rubs me that I see many go through the chairs, hit PM, and after that you only see them once a year. If all the local Past Masters in my lodge would show up to even half the meetings each year, our attendance would soar. I wonder how many lodges are in a similar situation.Al

l that said, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to simply elect people to individual offices with no expectation of moving through 'the line.' Rather, we elect based on individuals desires, availability, and ability. I know 'the line' is how things are done, and I'm sure I'm borderline heretical by mentioning alternatives. But I just can't help but think that maybe the one size fits all system isn't best for every lodge, and that there isn't a better alternative, even if that means decentralizing the election process a bit, or providing more than one path/structure for officer elections from which lodges can choose.

My shields are up. Discuss/flame on.

 

[cacarter]

Bro. Benton you make some very good points and arguments.

I, too, think that an automatic rotating through the chairs could be bad for the lodge. If I remember correctly there was even an article on this site about that topic. Saying that, I think rotating through South and West on the way to the East can be beneficial to both the brother and the lodge. If a brother's ability is found lacking or insufficient for the next chair he can be passed over, thus relieving the lodge of possible future problems. As beneficial to the brother, it gives him time to work with the WM and learn what is expected of him and prepare for his current and future offices. The current L.I.F.E. program addresses the knowledge needed for each office.

Throwing new brothers into the chairs is a common theme I've heard in many lodges (including AZ). When a lodge is having the same 10-15 members show up for everything it often seems like a good thing to keep the new mason involved. However this can quickly lead to burn out. I felt that way after getting through my proficiencies, many wanted me to work on lectures and degree work. I got through the SD parts for the EA and FC, but after that I was burned out. Having said that, I will be JW for this upcoming year and likely progress through the chairs if I end up staying in Lubbock for long enough. If it were possible--enough new members--to train multiple brothers to be ready for the chairs would be great.

My father's lodge back home in AZ has the same officers 2 years running I believe for a few reasons. The officers are all PM's, but they've found a group that works well for their needs. If they find a reason to change or an officer is feeling burned out they can change it. Similar to how are secretaries are usually the same person for continuity in the business of the lodge.

The absent PM's is a problem we have down here too. That'll be our best attended meeting and they have great ideas and knowledge they could contribute, but they are not around frequently enough to continue to affect a change. I've considered starting a list of numbers to call a couple of days before lodge and personally invite them to lodge that week.

 

[Tx4ever]

Are we not all given the opportunity to nominate "anyone" and vote for who we want . Even at the WM an SW stations.

 

[Benton]

Are we not all given the opportunity to nominate "anyone" and vote for who we want . Even at the WM an SW stations.

But in reality how often does this happen? People move linearly through the chairs in my experience. Sometimes skipping a chair if someone drops out, but they move linearly all the same. There an expectation that if you start wherever an individual lodge's line starts, you'll end up WM. I'm suggesting that just because you'd make a grand JD doesn't mean you would be an effective WM.

 

[Bro. Brad Marrs]

This is a thought provoking post, Brother Benton.

I am not a fan of the progressive line. There are some Lodges that simply don't have enough active members, and when they see enthusiasm, they get that Brother in the lineup and move him along so they can get a break. For those, the question of consolidation is probably more important than the progressive line.

However, there are also Lodges hat do have enough members, and they're rotated through the line just because they filled a seat (maybe?), that year.

This scenario, in my opinion, is the worst one. The progressive line has one key strength, and hat is to allow a Brother to learn as he goes along, and to give the Brethren an opportunity to see if he is qualified to serve as a principal officer, and later, as Master.

I think this breaks down, because in my experience, pride and our tendency to avoid conflict at all cost, gets in the way of good judgement. People are allowed to progress who aren't qualified. It takes more than being a good man, to be a good leader, and telling a Brother to step down, is not telling him that he is a bad Mason or a bad person.

We need to do a better job of setting expectations for our stations and places. Our Lodges have By-Laws, but they should also have Rules and Regulations, and these R&Rs should spell out the responsibilities of each office, all the way from Lodge maintenance to education. Each officer should know what they're getting in to way before they accept a nomination or appointment. This keeps us all on the level, and provides structure for running the Lodge. These R&Rs should also be reviewed from time to time, say every three years, to make sure they are still applicable, and it's worth noting that they never replace the discretion of the Worshipful Master.

If a man has been given a definition of his responsibilities, beyond what's defined in the Monitor, and GL Law, and he still fails to meet those expectations, then he should not be allowed to move on, and feelings should not be hurt.

Leadership positions within Lodge should be reserved for the peacemakers, and more importantly for those who can best work and best agree. We need to do a better job of admonishing each other, with friendship and humility.

 

[Bro_Vick]

The issue is that men who start at Junior Stewart think they are entitled to Worshipful Master, even though they are willfully unqualified for such a position. We also have a tendency to put men in the east for reasons that aren't completely fair, son or grandson of somebody. Someone that knows the Work very well, but couldn't lead themselves out of a paperbag, and of course the men who sit in the east to aspire to other Masonic bodies, and nothing more. This does more harm than a Worshipful Master being in the East for too short of a period.

For Past Masters not showing up the after they sit in the east, I can see the reasons why. In the military when a change of Command happens you hardly see the out going commander. This is done so people won't be confused, nor try to run to him or her when they have a problem, vice the current commander. The same could be said for WM, if the Junior Past Master is constantly coming around, it could potentially cause problems for the sitting WM.

The election process is flawed, because we are flawed. Leading men has always been a hit and miss proposition in humanitites existance, still I think that Masonry has tried to answer the potential pitfalls as well as it could. Every lodge will have a man sit in the east who had no business doing so, whether it famalial connections, or really knowing the work, etc. The risk mitigation factors put in (L.I.F.E. program, Wardens retreat, etc) have help curb it, but we still get rotten apples.

S&F,
-Bro Vick

 

[scialytic]

Great content on this thread. There are clearly pros and cons for each. What would you think of a partial rotation for the top 3 or 5 leading up to WM and the others elected. I am not entirely familiar (yet) with all of he positions, as I am new to Masonry, but (to my ignorant view) this sounds like a decent hybrid. This forces the top Officers to learn their positions prior to assuming the next, and allows other positions that may be suited more for certain skillsets to assume those positions without having to go through others that may not be complimentary to their skillsets.

Just throwing something out there. Obviously, any of you would be able to tell me if this is done in other states or if it is even viable.

Patiently waiting for Light,

Graham
Dallas, Texas
Petitioning Sam P. Cochran #1335

 

[Traveling Man]

For Past Masters not showing up the after they sit in the east...

You're kidding, right? After all the desparaging remarks made about Past Masters on this Forum alone, convinces me never return to my mother lodge!

Okay, ya'll can have at it...

 

[Tx4ever]

I dont see voting for a brother to sit in the south if i dont think that brother would make a good WM. He may have to sit in {the East}at any time. The WM,SW,JW,Secretary,Tresurer,and Tiler or all elected IML. The other "places" are appointed usually by the incoming WM. Just being SD does not mean an automatic spot into the south.JMO

 

[Blake Bowden]

Your kidding, right? After all the desparaging remarks made about Past Masters on this Forum alone, convinces me never return to my mother lodge!

Hey, I'll be a member of that group in 6 days! Woot!

 

[Traveling Man]

Leadership positions within Lodge should be reserved for the peacemakers, and more importantly for those who can best work and best agree.

Normally I would agree with all of the above; but there comes a time to eliminate intolerance and bigotry. When would be the "proper time" to reshuffle the deck? If one wanted to eliminate intolerance and bigotry they would not be deemed a "peace maker" and would not best agree; with the "status quo". (ie. go along to get along). Just some thoughts...

 

[Michael Hatley]

I like the progressive line. It slows me down and raises the odds considerably that I won't burn myself out. After serving on a whole slew of boards, elected positions, climbing the corporate ladder, political appointments blah blah blah, I just know myself. I shoulder people out of the way at a quick clip to lead if left to my own devices, it just is what it is. I’m really not a power hungry sort (I don't think, sigh), but I don't do well with power vacuums, indecision, hand wringing, bullies or any of that kind of thing. So I inevitably wind up with more responsibility than I need, want, or have patience for. And then my exit strategies always seem to vanish and I'm stuck with noone to pass the baton to. That has burned me out for well and true a couple of times in both business and politics. Especially the latter, where the positions are usually either voluntary or come with a token stipend - which includes far more positions in government in this country than a lot of people realize, as an aside.

The progressive line allows me to concentrate on one role, for a specific period of time. It doesn’t guarantee that other people will carry some of the weight, but it makes the odds better than in many organizations I’ve seen and been a part of. It takes impatience largely off the table, ambition too. It institutionalizes the compasses, in a way.

I also have a strong, strong bond with the fellows sitting in the other chairs. There is something just satisfying looking around the room and seeing the faces of my Brothers. It flattens the command structure and makes it less top heavy, imo. It is a graduated team rather than a lonely existence. Lots of groups are like that, because there aren't term limits and a systemized method of moving people through the roles. That team element is really important to me, and imo the progressive line encourage a first among equals situation better than than most other organizations that come to mind.

For folks with less fire in their belly, to the other extreme perhaps, it can also introduce them to leadership little by little. I think that is pretty positive.

Most of all, there is an exit strategy. That’s the biggie, for me. Huge. If WMs got into the situation of having to govern their lodges for years on end, I think you'd see even less active PMs - by a long way actually. Once you burn out for well and true it is hard to get rid of that taste in your mouth, and in my mind a lodge can survive a mediocre leader for a year....but a bitter one for years? A lot tougher.

So personally, I think the progressive line is one of the strengths of the organization. That isn’t to say I don’t recognize the dangers from the other direction, just my views. Sorry to ramble, interesting topic.

 

[scialytic]

I'm sold. Great perspective.