|
Post by Trinityman on Jan 4, 2005 12:11:35 GMT
In the example you quote the Unattached Brother would have the chance of ten Lodges to visit, but equally the man who had moved to a small place with only one Lodge and miles from the next town would be stuffed after his one visit. True, but if he only has one lodge in his immediate vicinity, then he has no choice on which one to join anyway. If a lodge is close enough to potentially join then it's certainly close enough to visit.
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on Jan 4, 2005 19:29:34 GMT
Bill,thanks for that info and makes it a bit easier for the brothe who resigned but does he still need to be a fully paid up member or if he has not paid due for a year can he still visit the ten times ? and what if they are 40 lodges in the vicinity and is vicinity the town or province.?
|
|
|
Post by Late Knight Chemist on Jan 5, 2005 0:15:11 GMT
Steve, I work in the public service and forget how secure our jobs may be relative to the private sector. May I suggest that your situation, redundancy, could have been sorted at Lodge level - at least in part and if within its means.
In Worcestershire there is a Provincial charity that will support a Brother and pay one year's dues. The Almoner's fund could also be approached for help.
Thinking about someone moving to the sticks where there is only one or two lodges if he does not like any of them he limits his choices - take it or leave it. Relaxation of the rules may make little difference. In any event just because he moves does not mean that he has to resign existing lodges. I would have thought most lodges would offer PIG status to any Brother showing an interest in joining them.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 5, 2005 8:37:29 GMT
When money is tight, especially after divorce etc and if one is on the Dole, even more harsh these days under the Blairite "Job Seekers Allowance" then matters such as Lodge Subs may well have to be sacrificed to meet more basic requirements. This is more the case where Subs are high such as London and the Home Counties.
I am glad that Worcestershire has a fund to assist needy Brethren in this way for one year and I did suggest such an idea on another forum whether as a Private Lodge initiative or at Provincial Level.
Now I'm not trying to help the real freeloader who is prepared to have something for nothing, thankfully I have yet to meet such a Freemason, but the decent Brother who does the right thing, pays up all his dues, resigns from his Lodge in Good Standing but finds that he is de facto debarred from Masonic activities by this draconian rule, particularly if he lives in small One Lodge Town. I really feel that this rule was framed by those who judge a Brother on the exterior aspects of Rank and Fortune. When I was redundant myself I found who my TRUE Brethren where, Members of my Lodge and other Masons who helped me in ways that did not strip me of my self esteem and I will always thank them for this. Alas I also encountered a few who had been only too friendly when I was able to stand a round at the bar but turned away when I was in short commons, having paid only lip service to the words addressed to them at their Initiation.
As for the Honorary Membership "poison pill" this is totally unforgivable and even if the hated Unattached Rule had to remain for members who had resigned, its provisions could easily be rescinded by Grand Lodge as regards this category of long serving Member by means of creating a special Registration status for them to enable them to stay on UGLE's Books and thus to visit other Lodges as often as they desired.
Finally, as things stand, even if a Lodge wanted to grant P.I.G. status to a potential joiner, if he was Unattached they would be blocked from doing so, he could visit them once only, unless of course they turned a "Nelson Eye" to this Rule as I am sure does occur.
|
|
|
Post by Doric on Jan 5, 2005 8:50:50 GMT
, unless of course they turned a "Nelson Eye" to this Rule as I am sure does occur. Certainly does! ;D
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 5, 2005 9:04:59 GMT
There is a school of thought that any Law which is on the Books but generally ignored brings the whole Body of Law into disrepute.
If Doric's quote is indeed the case, and I personally know this occurs, then the more reason to strike this Rule out that respect for the others be upheld.
|
|
|
Post by Trinityman on Jan 5, 2005 13:28:06 GMT
Bill,thanks for that info and makes it a bit easier for the brothe who resigned but does he still need to be a fully paid up member or if he has not paid due for a year can he still visit the ten times ? and what if they are 40 lodges in the vicinity and is vicinity the town or province.? An unattached freemason does not have to be fully paid up at all - he may have stopped going to lodge years ago. He may visit any lodge once before rejoining so he has the choice of over 6000 lodges in the UK before he needs to make up his mind. So in your example he can visit each of the 40 lodges once. The real issue here is not necessarily discrimination against an unattached brother, but how many visits does one have to make to any specific lodge to decide whether one wishes to join or not? Current UGLE policy says once, Steve's proposal is ' as many as he requires'.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 5, 2005 23:33:15 GMT
Surely if an Unattached Mason was not fully paid up he would be excluded and could not "legally" attend any Lodge? If he did then as I understand matters that Lodge would be liable for his outstanding dues to the Lodge from which he had been excluded.
I am strictly speaking about Brtheren who have resigned in Good Standing, owe nothing to any of their former Lodges and have no character problem against them.
|
|
|
Post by Trinityman on Jan 6, 2005 1:25:22 GMT
Steve - you're quite right. Fully paid up means not in arrears at the time of resignation. What I meant was once this was done no further payments may have been made for many years.
A brother who resigns while in arrears is surely honour bound to ensure he gets back up to date, or suffer the consequences of being in 'debt to the Craft'. If he faces financial straits there are many things that can be done to assist.
So to re-answer Staffs - no - he can't visit anyone until he pays his arrears and resigns in good standing. Masonry is not 'free' in that sense ;D
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 6, 2005 8:16:18 GMT
I have no problem in those who WON'T pay losing the right to visit etc, after all one would be unlikely to be allowed to play Golf at a Club if one had not paid the subs. For those who want to pay their way but are unable, I like the idea that Bruce (LNC) mentioned as being available in his area, a fund to help such a Brother in Distressed Circumstances and I'm sure some Lodges would make some arrangement, even an ad hoc whip round by more comfortable Brethren to pay the man's subs. Obviously there has to be a limit of some sort, but each case would need to be considered on its merits.
However this muddies the waters. My main point is the adverse effect of the Unattached Rule on the man who has done the right thing, paid up all his dues and now is still a Freemason who wishes to attend another Lodge more than but once, or the Long Serving Brother who cannot accept the Honour his Lodge wishes to pay him as will thereby lose the pleasure of Visiting other Lodges. As I have said I fear that this is an example where Money is allowed to be the take precedence over fellowship. Of course funding is of importance, no organisation can run without it, but we are not an Investment Club or Fund but a body based on Fraternity.
|
|
|
Post by waynecowley on Jan 12, 2005 13:57:00 GMT
Well by a strange coincidence we had a lodge committee meeting the night before last. Believe it or not our secretary put forward the suggestion that we should offer honorary membership to ALL our brethren who were over a certain age (to be determined) and who had a certain length of service. Armed with the information I had previously read here I explained to all those present the problems that this would cause for many of our elder brethren who still visit regularly. Indeed, one of them was present and made it clear he would not accept the offer as he wanted to pay his way. I think the secretary now has me down as a fully paid up member of the awkward squad - if he hadn't already worked that out - could be an interesting year starting in November! Wayne
|
|
|
Post by Late Knight Chemist on Jan 12, 2005 14:13:26 GMT
Brethren,
With respect to honorary members what do is meant by "honorary"? In this context it is the "membership" that is honorary. It is in effect a token membership.
We recently discussed this at a Mark meeting and, with the benefit of discussion elsewhere on the net, we recognised what we may be asking people to give up.
May I suggest a discussion on costs. If you have several honorary members who attend regulary they will not be sharing in the rental costs. In effect the rent of the room is shared among fewer people. Rent may be the most significant cost to members (after PGL and GL dues). It may make sense for Lodges to consider offering a reduced membership fee (perhaps to cover PGL and GL dues) with local membership costs being met by the Lodge (ie the remaining brethren).
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Jan 12, 2005 19:56:48 GMT
Bruce
Although I agree with your points, I feel that it would be most unusual tohave more than 2 honarary members at one time (In all the units I am in (36) I have only got 2 units that have 2 honarary members and only about 6 others that have 1.
I just dont think the problem arises!
If a brother desereves hon membership it is disgusting in the way things are presently run that they pay the price we have already discussed
|
|
|
Post by waynecowley on Jan 13, 2005 8:18:34 GMT
Well we have quite a few more than 2 in my Craft lodge - although only 1 is a long standing member who has been honoured for what he had done. He resigned from the lodge on health grounds as he didn't feel he could play a role any more - we didn't agree and promptly made him an honorary so that we didn't lose him completely. Unfortunatly he has yet to take up the right to attend conferred on him by this.
Of the remainder, most are Provincial Executives present and past (PGM, Deputy PGM and Assistant PGMs). The other is a long standing "guest" organist at the lodge who turns up more than some of our paying members - and we would be much the poorer without him so we made him an honorary member in reward for the suppoort he had given us.
Wayne
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Jan 13, 2005 8:53:43 GMT
Wayne
I am sorry of cours most of us kow honarary members who are made so because they were part of a consecrating team, but I did not believe we were discussing this type of hon member. I am sorry for the confusion.
These Hon members are not expecting to gain anything from Hon mem just the Hon membership itself, as a way of thanking them for partaking (mainly) in the consecration. The Hon mem I am speaking about is the one member who is now 'Hon'.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 13, 2005 9:30:43 GMT
Yes, I am speaking about the Ordinary Honorary Member, PM or not, who has served his Lodge for many years, not members of the Chain Gang etc given Honorary Membership as a custom at a Consecration, a practice I personally dislike.
The only other cure for this problem if this ridiculous and outmoded rule is not to be abolished would be for the Lodge itself to pay the UGLE Registration Fee each year out of its funds for the Honorary member thus allowing him to continue to Visit other Lodges. This would only mean £1 or £2 Uk on other members subs and I for one would have no problem paying this for such a good cause.
|
|
|
Post by waynecowley on Jan 13, 2005 11:08:37 GMT
That actually is a very good idea - I will suggest it to our Secretary and Treasurer
Wayne
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 13, 2005 11:38:59 GMT
Glad to be of help Bro Wayne. Now of course the Secretary would then put him on the Annual Return as a Member with full rights. As to whether his name could then go on the Summons as an "Honorary" I would doubt, but that is but a detail point, the important part is that he would enjoy Free Membership as does the Secretary in most lodges.
|
|
|
Post by Late Knight Chemist on Jan 13, 2005 12:16:06 GMT
Steve,
I could hug you! You have gone further than I did earlier.
In order to get the due to GL does the annual return not go to PGL or MGL first? Will there also be a requirement to pay PGL dues?
Wayne,
Your Lodge needs to be a little careful. You need to think forward a bit. Members average ages tend to be increasing. You will not easily be able to go back to these members and remove the "honour" if Lodge funds are coping with the costs.
I would suggest that you also consider if there is a need for a qualifying period of membership.
The principle is nonetheless sound. I could see a scheme whereby one's Lodge dues included a small surcharge that went into a fund that dealt with these fees = a sort of benevolent fund.
Good Luck
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 13, 2005 12:38:31 GMT
As I recall matters when I was a Lodge Secretary the Annual Return and Cheque goes to UGLE at GQS a copy goes to the Provincial Grand Secretary but they usually have their own form which doubles up for the entry in the Year Book of that Province and charge a separate smaller Capitation based on the total thereon so it may be required for the Lodge to pay that too for any Brother awarded such a Badge of Merit by that Lodge. Some Centres charge a Capitation as well, others a flat rate room rent for Temples, Dining Rooms, LOI Rooms etc, a far fairer system in my book.
Now as far as I am aware it is only the lack of an UGLE Registration Fee which precludes the Honorary or Unattached Brother from Visiting other Lodges apart from a futile and unsatisfactory once, so let us stick to the Lodge paying that (and the Grand Charity Levy if also mandatory) to satisfy the Rules. As to existing Honorarys (excluding Chain Gang), I don't see why the Lodge cannot agree to pay their way also and get them back on the books at UGLE, there won't usually be that many, one or two .
Oh, BTW I will do without the hug, I don't wan't people to get the wrong impression. If we ever DID meet, a handshake would be sufficient.
|
|