# Dues That Still Don't



## JJones

Here's the latest post in my blog!

I hope you brothers enjoy it.


----------



## coachn

Your first link/image on your blog is not coming up.

BTW - Great article!  Good points.


----------



## JJones

Thanks! I think I fixed it.


----------



## Bloke

JJones said:


> Here's the latest post in my blog!
> 
> I hope you brothers enjoy it.



"3. Find out how many *dues paying *brethren are currently members of your lodge. Divide your average annual operating cost by this number. This number is the _minimum_ you should be charging for annual dues"

(At no one in particular).... how the hell would you calculate them any other way?

We've got a problem here with "cheap" lodges that get themselves in trouble and a general desire to keep Freemasonry cheap and accessible. I've just discovered a lodge I've audited twice (as member) and I kept asking about bills and weird amounts, and I've got to the point where I've been willing to *really* do something about it and discovered they've been skipping their biggest bill every once and a while and still owe one back to 2014 as well as others. It happened because a respected Sec did it that way in times of trouble and kept it going, so when we used the books to budget, it was never picked up and the last 2 treasurers, although qualified accountants, were young MMs did not picked it up but knew it was not quite right.... it was always "we missed this bill, but have made it up, so all is well"...

*breath*

So, our house is not exactly in order, but I read about American Lodges and scratch my head..... you give a 30 year old or even a 60 year old "life membership" for x 10 annual dues
.. even if it was x 50 years, most lodges don't sequester the cash but spend or give it away? Life memberships are bad news and it all comes down to capable and _vigorous_ management.


----------



## Bill Lins

The writer of the article posted "you can consider ‘grandfathering in’ the grandfathers and leave the dues for retired brethren as-is." Not under GLoTX, you can't.

*Art. 310. No Distinctions Among Vocations.* 
_No distinction in the amount of fees charged a candidate for the degrees, nor in the amount charged a member for dues, shall be made on account of the profession, occupation or calling of the candidate or member; and no reduction in the amount of fees, contributions or dues accruing to the Grand Lodge shall be made on that account._


----------



## Bloke

Bill Lins said:


> The writer of the article posted "you can consider ‘grandfathering in’ the grandfathers and leave the dues for retired brethren as-is." Not under GLoTX, you can't.
> 
> *Art. 310. No Distinctions Among Vocations.*
> _No distinction in the amount of fees charged a candidate for the degrees, nor in the amount charged a member for dues, shall be made on account of the profession, occupation or calling of the candidate or member; and no reduction in the amount of fees, contributions or dues accruing to the Grand Lodge shall be made on that account._


Is it silent on age or distress ?


----------



## JJones

Bill Lins said:


> The writer of the article posted "you can consider ‘grandfathering in’ the grandfathers and leave the dues for retired brethren as-is." Not under GLoTX, you can't.
> 
> *Art. 310. No Distinctions Among Vocations.*
> _No distinction in the amount of fees charged a candidate for the degrees, nor in the amount charged a member for dues, shall be made on account of the profession, occupation or calling of the candidate or member; and no reduction in the amount of fees, contributions or dues accruing to the Grand Lodge shall be made on that account._



Well, I just learned something! Thanks Bro. Lins. Just fixed that also.


----------



## JJones

@Bloke I'm relatively new to my current lodge but the annual dues are $75 and each degree is $75 also. It was explained to me that this kept things simple and everyone know what everything would cost.

I'm also a bit ashamed to admit that I'm the current WM here but I haven't had any luck with presenting the changes I mentioned in my post. There are some very unhealthy cultures in many lodges and this is one of them. 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.


----------



## Bloke

JJones said:


> @Bloke I'm relatively new to my current lodge but the annual dues are $75 and each degree is $75 also. It was explained to me that this kept things simple and everyone know what everything would cost.
> 
> I'm also a bit ashamed to admit that I'm the current WM here but I haven't had any luck with presenting the changes I mentioned in my post. There are some very unhealthy cultures in many lodges and this is one of them. 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.


 A cheap lodge here is $100 plus GL capitation (paid once in lowest numbered craft lodge and that's about $110). Dues at mother lodge are 220 plus GL, at other lodge it's $350. It's rare a lodge does not set annual fee by using the below;

(Number of dues paying members) 
÷
(annual expenses) 
+
(GL fees)
= annual dues

That's  the only way to survive. 

Some will work in meal cost, but most have user pays. $20 dining fee at mother lodge $35 at other lodge.

As I've said before, evolution rather than revolution is often the way to make change at a lodge; keep chipping away towards progress  Brother...


----------



## David Duke

Our dues are 120.00 and some of the highest in our area that I know of. About 95 of our 240+ living members are endowed, of those about 20 voluntarily pay at least the cost of the per capita so we are relatively financially stable. 

All that being said I am hoping that in the next couple of years we would raise our dues to at least 150.00 but I wouldn't want to do that until we raise our endowment which is currently at 700.00 but the road block to doing that is that per our bylaws we purchase the outgoing WM an endowment or if he already has one we purchase  additional matching units. At the rate of returns over the past 7 years it takes over 20 years to just break even.

I tried this past spring to get the bylaws changed to awarding a Life Membership instead, we would still pay per capita but wouldn't be out the cost if the endowment, this was overwhelmingly rejected. So I am really concerned about raising the endowment cost since it will only cost the Lodge more on the outgoing WM and I wouldn't want to raise dues without raising the endowment cost. Although in looking at what I just wrote I think it would probably be financially better for us to pay the additional purchase price for the 1 endowment which would be significantly offset by the additional monies raised in dues although I am sure we would loose a few for NPD. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry


----------



## Ripcord22A

David Duke said:


> Our dues are 120.00 and some of the highest in our area that I know of. About 95 of our 240+ living members are endowed, of those about 20 voluntarily pay at least the cost of the per capita so we are relatively financially stable.
> 
> All that being said I am hoping that in the next couple of years we would raise our dues to at least 150.00 but I wouldn't want to do that until we raise our endowment which is currently at 700.00 but the road block to doing that is that per our bylaws we purchase the outgoing WM an endowment or if he already has one we purchase  additional matching units. At the rate of returns over the past 7 years it takes over 20 years to just break even.
> 
> I tried this past spring to get the bylaws changed to awarding a Life Membership instead, we would still pay per capita but wouldn't be out the cost if the endowment, this was overwhelmingly rejected. So I am really concerned about raising the endowment cost since it will only cost the Lodge more on the outgoing WM and I wouldn't want to raise dues without raising the endowment cost. Although in looking at what I just wrote I think it would probably be financially better for us to pay the additional purchase price for the 1 endowment which would be significantly offset by the additional monies raised in dues although I am sure we would loose a few for NPD.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry


Whats the difference between life and emdowed?

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Bloke

JJones said:


> @Bloke I'm relatively new to my current lodge but the annual dues are $75 and each degree is $75 also. It was explained to me that this kept things simple and everyone know what everything would cost.
> 
> I'm also a bit ashamed to admit that I'm the current WM here but I haven't had any luck with presenting the changes I mentioned in my post. There are some very unhealthy cultures in many lodges and this is one of them. 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.



We only run fundraisers for two purposes; charity or to do something with our building. When finds raised go into consolidated revenue, members get narky.

Do you pay for dinner ? We have alcohol which adds to the expense but it's worth it


----------



## coachn

JJones said:


> Here's the latest post in my blog!
> 
> I hope you brothers enjoy it.


Yep, thank you!!!!


----------



## David Duke

Ripcord22A said:


> Whats the difference between life and emdowed?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app



The life membership is awarded by the Lodge for distinguished service  the endowment is purchased either by the member or Lodge (in his name). With both, the member is not obligated to pay dues (although as stated above some do). The Lodge is still required to pay the per capita on both life and end endowed members. 

A Lodge can award a maximum of 4 life memberships in a 3 year period and a maximum of 2 in one year. We rarely award life membership in fact to my knowledge we have only given 1 in the past ten years. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Ripcord22A

David Duke said:


> The life membership is awarded by the Lodge for distinguished service  the endowment is purchased either by the member or Lodge (in his name). With both, the member is not obligated to pay dues (although as stated above some do). The Lodge is still required to pay the per capita on both life and end endowed members.
> 
> A Lodge can award a maximum of 4 life memberships in a 3 year period and a maximum of 2 in one year. We rarely award life membership in fact to my knowledge we have only given 1 in the past ten years.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


Thats interesting....neither of mine have it set up like that....life and endowed are just different names of the same thing in my jurisdictions.  In NM nad OR. GL handles the funds.  Every year the profits from the endowment go back to the lodges

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## David Duke

The Lodge or member are not out anything on the Life membership other than the Lodge paying the per capita, however, there is no return since nothing has been invested. Like yours on the endowment the funds are sent to GL where it is invested and paid out annually in perpetuity. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry


----------



## Bloke

According to our Const we can have

Ordinary members (has a vote, 50% discount for country, and by a lodge bylaw 50% for students, but the bylaw is common. Many lodges will have a pension discount, none I am a member of have that)
Special (has a vote, no Dues, GL paid by lodge or waived by GL on age)
Honorary ( no dues but no GL and also no voting rights. Must be member of another lodge)
We don't have purchasable endowments or life members.


----------



## Warrior1256

Very good points!


----------



## Bill Lins

Bloke said:


> Is it silent on age or distress ?


A Lodge may, by vote, agree to assist an elderly or distressed Brother, but it still must pay the full _per capita_ to Grand Lodge.
*Art. 314. May Remit or Exempt from Payment.* 
_A Lodge may exempt any member from the payment of current dues, may remit the dues of a member in arrears, or may remit or compromise the amount of dues owing by a Brother suspended for non-payment thereof, but is not thereby exempt from the payment of any part of its dues on such member or suspended Brother to the Grand Lodge._


----------



## Bloke

Bill Lins said:


> A Lodge may, by vote, agree to assist an elderly or distressed Brother, but it still must pay the full _per capita_ to Grand Lodge.
> *Art. 314. May Remit or Exempt from Payment.*
> _A Lodge may exempt any member from the payment of current dues, may remit the dues of a member in arrears, or may remit or compromise the amount of dues owing by a Brother suspended for non-payment thereof, but is not thereby exempt from the payment of any part of its dues on such member or suspended Brother to the Grand Lodge._


Thanks for confirming this flexibility


----------



## Ripcord22A

My lodge in NM has several tier...i believe they are full dues, retired, out of state and elderly(cant remeber the age though) and @ a certain age dues are forgiven

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## bupton52

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


----------



## Bill Lins

Bloke said:


> 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

bupton52 said:


> 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)


----------



## Warrior1256

Bill Lins said:


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


Same here.


----------



## LK600

Bill Lins said:


> 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

LK600 said:


> 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 ?


----------



## Warrior1256

Bloke said:


> Masonic bodies, esp in the post ww2 boom, are notorious for creating and passing financial problems onto following generations..


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


----------



## LK600

Warrior1256 said:


> 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

LK600 said:


> 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

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

JJones said:


> 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

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

Bloke said:


> 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

JJones said:


> 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

Carl_in_NH said:


> 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!


----------



## Bill Lins

Ripcord22A said:


> 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


As stated earlier, NOT under the GLoTX.


----------

