I need HELP. When I was installed Grand Commander I knew there where some commanderies just hanging on by a thread, probably 4 or 5. What I didn't know was that the "Grand Bodies" of the York Rite in Iowa had been keeping them on the books without reports or maybe even collecting per capita or dues. I am not going to argue about why or who, that is history, what I need help with is where do we go from here.
Should an inactive Commandery or Chapter, Council, or Lodge for that matter have it's charter revoked? What determines inactivity? I always took the approach to leave them alone, and let them "die on the vine". But the past couple of years we have seen one or two individuals make the decisions for all and issue demits to all members, approve a consolidation, or turn there charter in. I maintain that you must pay dues to be in good standing, but attendance is not required.
The Grand Commandery of Iowa has created a statewide holding commandery, St. George Commandery No.72. It exists solely under the authority of the Grand Commander and Grand Dais Officers and Grand Recorder. Its purpose is to allow each member to: 1. maintain their membership if the charter is revoked or surrendered 2. to give the Grand Commander the authority to correspond with each member discussing their options as to consolidation, demitting, or affiliation. The Grand Chapter and Grand Council are considering creating such statewide holding Chapters and Councils. I hope they find merit in them because the Grand Commandery and local Commandery is dependant on the local Chapter and Council. We need to work together to strengthen our Rite and maintain our members.
I want opinions. Are these good ideas? Suggestions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is an excellent idea. Issuing a demit puts the Companion/Sir Knight outside the fold. This way he remains a member until he has time to decide what to do. We lost two members in the Red Cross of Constantine because demits were issued. Not a good thing.
ReplyDeleteI am torn on this subject, and can see it from two distinct angles, and can justify both.
ReplyDeleteThe first is in support of forming a Chapter, Council, and Commandery for the explicit purpose of retaining membership. This idea is good for keeping members who are not able, or simply just don't, attend meetings, nor are active in their respective local York Rite. This option would be good for Brothers who live quite a distance from the closest York Rite bodies, who are invalid, or who are unavailable to be active in their local body.
However, in forming York Rite groups at a state level solely for the purpose of keeping people on the rolls cheapens the entire Rite. I say this in that it gives the brother little motivation for becoming/remaining active in their local body, which is essential to the long-term success of the Rite. Although, issuing blanket demits is not the right option either.
So, as you can see, there are two sides to this issue. In the case of forming these groups, there needs to be two expectations: 1) That dues are paid in a timely manner, and 2) A Brother should only be allowed to be a member of these 'holding' Chapters/Councils/Commanderies for a very specific amount of time. The first expectation guarantees that they truly want to continue their membership in the Rite (I would make the dues higher than those of local York Rite bodies to discourage Brothers from demitting from their local bodies in search of cheaper dues from the 'holding' bodies), and with the caveat that they have/had to be in good standing with the local body before they will be placed in the 'holding' bodies. The second encourages Brothers to either become active in their local bodies, and/or starting a new Chapter/Council/Commandery in a manner that would encourage their attendance (I would encourage a 3 year membership limit in the 'holding' bodies).
The prospect of starting new bodies at the local level brings me to another issue, the number of Chapters, Councils, and Commanderies. It is my humble opinion, that having a 1 Chapter to 1 Council to 1 Commandery is not the ideal ratio for the York Rite, but that 3 Chapters to 1 Council, and 3 Councils to 1 Commandery would be the ideal. Although some would argue that this would reduce membership in the Commandery, I believe that the opposite would occur, as the total available Brothers for the Council, and thus the Commandery, would actually increase (three-fold!). Does this mean that we close already extant groups? Absolutely not, but that we do not grant charters to new Councils or Commanderies without the magic ratio. I believe that this would increase participation in all three bodies, and raise the level of prestige of the entire Rite, giving the Council the position of the middle of the mountain, and the Commandery being seen as the pinnacle, rather than each body seeming like just another York Rite body.
Just my two cents worth...
At least someone is thinking outside of the box. Allowing one or two individuals to decide the fate of any Masonic organization is simply not right. Having this statewide "holding" group at least gives us the opportunity to potentially save some members.
ReplyDeleteRE Grand Commander,
ReplyDeleteIn Minnesota we have both a holding Chapter and Commandery. We have ours set up so that as a Chapter or Commandery fails those who are current members are not dropped from the rolls. These holding groups only add members as a Chapter or Commandery losses its charter. To remain a member they are either Life members or must pay annual dues in the amount that their original Chapter/Commandery charged.
Because of the holding body we were able to actually save a Commandery and will hopefully be able also bring back a Chapter in the same community.
If you want more info we are more than happy to help.
James
I think this issue is complicated by the fact that the bodies haven't submitted reports. If the body doesn't submit reports it may be hard to determine how many of the members are actually paying dues. I agree that issuing a demit to a member due to an inactive chapter/council/commandery could be harmful, so could closing one that members feel strong ties to. Members who are paying dues should be able to maintain membership if only in a "holding" grand body. Due should be equal to what they had been paying, not more or less or even grand determined, but equal. I feel that a chapter/council/commandery should not be closed unless it has fewer members than is required to start a one. Some bylaws may disagree, but if a body is closed and those same members can petition to start a new body something isn't right.
ReplyDeleteI think the most ideal option is to help the body clean it's records and possibly help then find some new members. Thus determining the actually number of members still paying dues (or alive) and possibly reducing their obligations to grand. This one on one contact (preferably at the lodge) can help ease the transition into closing if necessary or could incourage new membership simply by people at the lodge asking who are all these people and what are they doing.
I'm an optomist, but it could be fun to hold a one day or festival at a location of a struggling body. Lots of people coming into town stoping at a gas station/cafe/hotel all answering the question "What brings you to town?" I was in three WEEKLY newspapers (small towns don't do daily) while on a canoe trip simply by answering that question.
Some bodies will need to close, but if we can determine just how small they have to be before we close them, we'll have been square to our brothern and hopefully calmed future roughins in the temple.
Just my penny, but I'm new here.