I have been studying the VA Methodical Digest as part of my preparation to step up to Junior Warden for the forthcoming year. In the section on Dues and the non payment thereof, it states that a member who is NPD for one year should be cited for suspension at the next stated (i.e February, as the citation goes out in January) communication to show cause as to why he should not be suspended. Therefore, a member should never be allowed to accumulate arrears of more than one year's dues, plus the current year, if I interpret that correctly.
On going through some old records as part of archival work, I found citations for NPD were the Brothers concerned were said to owe as much as $500 in back dues, which cannot be right, as suspension should have occurred in the year immediately following the first non payment. It seems that the Secretary and WM in those particular years did not follow correct Masonic procedure, in which case according to a 1997 decision by the GL, those suspensions should be set aside as being irregular.
Now all these were before my time, and I am not a fan of feckless people who fail to pay their dues without reason and have voted to suspend; I have also voted to waive the dues of members who do bother to contact the Lodge and explain their situation, but these cases are different. Yes the Brothers who did not pay were at fault initially, but allowing several years of debt to accumulate before citation is in my view unjust and highly irregular.
The question is, have I interpreted the law correctly, or am I opening a can of worms here?
On going through some old records as part of archival work, I found citations for NPD were the Brothers concerned were said to owe as much as $500 in back dues, which cannot be right, as suspension should have occurred in the year immediately following the first non payment. It seems that the Secretary and WM in those particular years did not follow correct Masonic procedure, in which case according to a 1997 decision by the GL, those suspensions should be set aside as being irregular.
Now all these were before my time, and I am not a fan of feckless people who fail to pay their dues without reason and have voted to suspend; I have also voted to waive the dues of members who do bother to contact the Lodge and explain their situation, but these cases are different. Yes the Brothers who did not pay were at fault initially, but allowing several years of debt to accumulate before citation is in my view unjust and highly irregular.
The question is, have I interpreted the law correctly, or am I opening a can of worms here?