|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 2, 2005 12:38:20 GMT
This is relevant to UGLE Lodges as the Scots etc have a far better system, but it may interest others.
As those from "another Forum" will know, I have nothing but contempt for this Rule and would like to see it expunged from the B of C as it adversely affects both the Brother who is made an Honorary Member of his Lodge as a reward for meritorious service and those who may find their circumstances worsen temporarily as a result of unemployment, divorce, illness etc.
As it stands, if a Freemason resigns in good standing from his Lodge(s), that is, he has paid all his dues etc and there is no character reason against him, he can only visit any UGLE Lodge but ONCE. Now this may be ok if he is in a large town where many Lodges meet but if he for whatever reason is in a small place there may be only one Lodge there.
Now he cannot get to know them after only one Meeting nor vice versa so an informed judgement cannot be formed by either party. If of course he can maintain membership of his former Lodge or at least one of those if he was in a few, then this problem does not arise and he merely joins the new Lodge then can resign in good standing from the former if he wishes. However, it can happen to any of us that a bad turn of fortune's wheel as we are told in the Rituals can result in membership fees for a Lodge we can no longer attend being an onerous burden, especially if in the Home Counties or London where subs can be £100 even for Country Membership.
Now I would like to see Life Membership as the Scots enjoy being introduced by UGLE albeit the cost would be higher, but failing that why not have the Brother pay his Capitation Levy direct to UGLE each year rather than assessing it on the Lodge to re-charge to each Member in his annual subs? A element of this could be for the Grand Charity. Thus a Freemason not attached to any Lodge would still be registerd on UGLE's books and able to visit Lodges as often as he wished, joining one which suited him and vice versa and not forced only to attend one time as at present. ( A rule to which a blind eye is often turned in reality). He would NOT be a Freeloader.
For the Honorary Member this would now be a TRUE reward by his Lodge and not with a sting in the tail as at present as any Brother who is only a Member of that Lodge will then be debarred from more than one visit to any other Lodge as things stand as he is no Longer on UGLE's books as no Capitation Fee is being paid for him. Either he could elect to pay this himself under my proposals, as it would be less than the full Lodge subs especially if Dining is included therein, or the Lodge could pay it for him as part of the Honour, as they do at present for the Secretary in many cases.
To me this makes plain commonsense and I really coannt see any valid argument agianst it. Society has changed and we no longer enjoy the stable lifestyles our fathers and grandfathers did with a job and marriage for life. Circumstances force many of us to change jobs against our will and move location, and divorce with all its disruptions is far more common.
So how about it UGLE? A reform which will truly echo the historic Masonic practice of offering "shelter" to the travelling Brother and which would cost UGLE and the Grand Charity nothing as they would still receive their Capitation Levies only now it would be from the Individual not via his Lodge.
|
|
|
Post by Trinityman on Jan 2, 2005 13:13:58 GMT
Steve
I remember this discussion from before and I think the solution you propose is a good one. I would, however, like to see limits placed on this 'official unattached' status as it would undermine the role of the private lodge if too many masons 'chose' this route as a permanent option.
Another variation on this theme is for the unattached mason to register with a Provincial Grand Lodge and be allowed to visit freely within that province. It would be easier to administrate and reduce the likelihood of permanently unattached freemasons.
Just a thought.
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on Jan 2, 2005 13:24:02 GMT
There was a situation on the other forum wher a member of a lodge resigned as JW and the lodge due to problems with a member of that lodge. Strangely enough this was in my province and that member visited our lodge at our installation . Under the UGLE rules he is nolonger able to visit any other lodges but my question is : What procedure is in place to stop him visiting any other lodges and if he did not sign the vistors book then who would know,He may well be able to dothis several times before someone raised the question. If he is now looking for a lodge to join he may well want to visit other lodges to see what one he likes so why cany there be a procedure or system in place where he pays a subscription to UGLE for a visiting pass that would enable him to visit other liodges duringthat year without actually being a member of one particular lodge until he find one that is suitable for him to join ?
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 2, 2005 13:58:43 GMT
I'm not too keen on Provinces becoming involved, too much bureaucracy from that source at present and once they want their wedge the cost would escalate as no doubt the Centres would then ask for an attendance fee.
The point at issue is that the Brother is not on UGLE's books as having paid the Annual Registration Fee , so if he pays them each year and gets a Visitor's Pass then that would be good enough for me, let's leave it at paying UGLE Registration and Grand Charity Capitation and we are all on their Computer anyway so if they can send us the dreadful "MQ" then they can send us an annual invoice for this fee.
Any such Brother would be very likely to contribute to the Lodge he was visiting as far as he was able as regards Alms and even to the dreaded raffles and of course he would pay for his meal if he stayed to the Festive Board. I feel most Freemasons would in time wish to join a Lodge so there would not be huge teams of Permanent Visitors though some Brethern might continue in that status. They would of course be unable to hold Office in that Lodge if they wished to, but otherwise would be in the same position as a P.I.G.
Now as regards the enforcement of this existing Rule, as I say a "Nelson Eye" is often turned. If the Visitor does not sign the book it is unlikely this would be noticed. Again if he came for an area far away and was introduced by a Member of that Lodge and signed in the name of his former Lodge having left it in Good Standing and having a Clearance Certificate then who would know? His entry in the Attendance Book would be taken at its face value. It's another case of "Don't ask and don't tell". I am sure that a "blind eye" is turned in many cases.
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on Jan 2, 2005 14:16:28 GMT
By having a visitors pass for a year and making thios an option available then maybe less people would drop out of freemasonry and UGLE would receive fees.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 2, 2005 17:29:05 GMT
Yes I can see your point Lee. Maybe there should be a limit of FIVE years max on a Vistor's Permit although personally I feel that, unless he renounces the Craft for personal reasons or is expelled for "Conduct Unbecoming" a Man is a Freemason for Life and we should not lightly discount him.
I have the horrid feeling that money is the key here, so as long as he could pay the Capitation then as you say, UGLE gets its wedge and he should be welcome to visit. Human nature being as it is, if we extend the hand of friendship to him when things are tough then, when he is restored to his financial comforts he is likely to join that Lodge.
|
|
|
Post by Doric on Jan 2, 2005 23:51:27 GMT
I think it's worth noting the reason why the rule exists in the first place - it's basically to prevent "Masonry on the cheap", whereby a Brother can visit Lodges freely, but not pay a subscription at all.
Now I agree with Steve to an extent - one visit certainly isn't enough to judge a Lodge on - or is it? After all, when you're Initiated, you won't have attended any meetings of the Lodge, but it doesn't stop you joining, does it?
Having said all that, there is certainly a case for life membership, but with changes in Capitation as often as there are, it would be difficult to know how to approach setting the rates!
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 3, 2005 3:59:30 GMT
"...After all, when you're Initiated, you won't have attended any meetings of the Lodge, but it doesn't stop you joining, does it?"
Hmm. Not a strictly accurate comparison I feel. Some of us DID know quite a bit about Freemasonry when we were Initiated and also knew some of the Brethren of the Lodge which was to become our Mother Lodge, and may even have attended events such as Ladies Nights. There is also the case that a man can be Initiated into a Lodge, then visit others, prefer one of them and in due time join another once a Master Mason and leave the original Lodge, I have seen this happen. Again the Mason I refer to wanting to join another Lodge will by then have his own ideas regarding Ritual, Festive Board, Lodge Social events if any, informed by his experiences in his original Lodge or Lodges. One visit will be insufficient for him to evaluate or indeed for them to get a true picture of him.
I also would not let a matter such as changes in Capitation get in the way, why should it? Income Tax and Council tax rates can change as can Road Fund and TV Licence, but the registration data for all of these is held on computer and we still pay. As UGLE Capitation is similar to a Tax then I cannot see that altering the amount would cause any difficulty. As I see it working, once a Brother is on UGLE's Books he would be sent an Invoice from GQS each year for his Capitation and that to Grand Charity and would pay this direct to FMH by Direct Debit if he wanted to. QCCC run a similar system. He would then be issued with his Annual Visitation Permit. All the Lodges would need to collect would be a sub to cover their own costs and that of Dining if inclusive. Contributions by Covenant to Masonic Charities would continue as at present over and above the Levy to the Grand Charity associated with the UGLE Capitation.
Like any such scheme there would be fine points of detail , something to keep the Lawyers and Accountants who range under our Banners busy, but I would not let that get in the way of the concept.
In the end I judge a Brother Mason on his character and committment in practical terms not on his money or lack of it.
|
|
|
Post by Doric on Jan 3, 2005 9:45:48 GMT
The point with capitation is not one of registration - but that the costs will almost certainly rise during a Masons' life, and therefore it will be difficult to peg the Life Membership fee
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 3, 2005 10:09:48 GMT
The Scots seem to have done this albeit they have now increased the cost for Life Membership for new applicants to a sum which is still "petty cash" compared to down here.
Whilst the two concepts are related, and I'd go with either, the added bonus is that the onus is taken away from the Lodge and placed with the Individual to maintain his Annual Fee to UGLE. This also de facto removes the 2 years rule as if a Brother was in arrears with LODGE subs it would be up to that Lodge to act or not as it desired taking all mitigating circumstances into account in each case. Not paying his Registration would preclude him from repeated visits. Thus a Brother on hard times- and I have been there myself 11 years ago and was lucky to have paid my subs in advance for a couple of years forseeing what did come- would still be able to participate as long as he could pay his Registration Fee. The pay off is that we would not lose a member.
Now if Political Parties, if Bodies such as The Law Society, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, etc can manage an Annual Registration scheme with Practicing Certificates etc, then I cannot see why UGLE cannot do this. as I say, if they can send us "MQ" (even if we do not actually want it) then I'm sure they can collate and send out such certificates. It's not "Rocket Science" with modern computer technology.
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on Jan 3, 2005 10:18:26 GMT
Ahh, now another thought Steve would be that when you registered or paid your subs you could be sent a credt card style registration card with your photo indicating your lodge and your qualifications. Although this would involve further admin and cost this would be a great benefir when visiting at home ,nationally and overseas. The card idea is done by CORGI the gas safety council for all gas installer and works very well toshow customers who you are and what qualifications you possess. In the above case if youwere unattached itwioukd just have VISITOR PASS stamped across it instead of your mother Lodge or the lodge you belong to and are fully poaid up with subs.
Any other ideas ??
As you say GL manage to send out MQ mag which Steve i know you throw in the bin so there are processeses in place
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 3, 2005 10:23:47 GMT
True Lee, although as you say this would involve extra cost. However I did read that in the USA such cards are issued to Brethren to allow them to visit Lodges in other States and overseas. I would happily pay for one but if it kept the cost down for Brethren on low incomes etc a simple paper certificate would suffice.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Jan 3, 2005 11:07:36 GMT
Ahh, now another thought Steve would be that when you registered or paid your subs you could be sent a credt card style registration card with your photo indicating your lodge and your qualifications. Lee The GLNF do this with Chapter and Craft. The truth is they are so disorganised only half of our members receive them! In fact if you try to attend Grand Chapter if you do not have your card they wont let you in! (I had a friend attend last year and after much argument he was let in but was not allowed to vote even though he was a PZ in GLNF!)
|
|
|
Post by Late Knight Chemist on Jan 3, 2005 12:30:02 GMT
Q: As a matter of interest when are most honorary members so honoured?
My experience suggests that many or most honorary memberships offered within lodges to their own members are made when a deserving member has reached a point when attending a lodge is not easy on age or health grounds or for financial reasons. In other cases honorary memberships are awarded past rulers for a variety of reasons. These members will usually be subscribing elsewhere.
Q: How many unattached Masons volunteer to put themselves in that position?
There is surely no reason why members who move away from their existing lodge cannot retain their membership and thereby access to visiting rights. That said there are many who have fallen out with their one lodge and feel the need to resign. They do not have to resign or could delay a formal resignation while they find a new home.
Q: Will the suggested plastic ID cards contain biometric details and might it cheaper merely to ask government to include an appropriate box on the government's new system?
This question is, of course, rhetorical but where is this discussion leading? Is there really any need for change? How many Masons are actually disadvantaged by the current rule?
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 3, 2005 13:26:35 GMT
A lot more than you think Bruce! I have been there and done that, having been made redundant 3 times in 2 years in the early 1990s and being on the basic Dole, as a single man I had no additional benefits, in those days it was £45 a week or so. Luckily I had a warning of what was coming and paid two years subs in advance to give me a bit of buffering but could well have done with that money later when on the Dole as it was equal to 4 weeks benefit. Other Brethren I knew were not so lucky, one really nice active Brother had to resign and never re-joined another Lodge as far as I am aware, another hit such a low as to have to be excluded and I pointed voted against this in Open Lodge when it was formally put. Unlike some I actually believe in the fine words spoken to the Initiate when he stands for "that peculiar moment" in the NE Corner and feel we ought to emulate the Stonemasons of olden times who helped a Brother once he had proven himself if he visited their Lodge rather than letting him visit but once. Other Constitutions do not appear to have this draconian rule yet they thrive and are not beset by mythical bands of unattached Freemasons freeloading and enjoying "Masonry on the Cheap". I have also known of long serving Brethren who have refused the Greatest Honour their Lodge can Confer on them of becoming an Honorary Member as this has been the only Lodge they belonged to and they could no longer enjoy Visiting, a great pleasure to many single elderly Brethren, if they had accepted. This rule, and its mate the two year Rule, is counter-productive, discriminatory, outmoded and does us much discredit making it appear that we are only interestd in the man for his MONEY and not as a MAN. The sooner it is axed the better! As for the silly idea of incorporating one's Masonic Affiliation into the National ID Card, when that is brought in a few years in the future. This is so fascile a suggestion that I will not comment further and is I sense only a "Journalistic Device" to muddy the waters.
|
|
|
Post by Doric on Jan 3, 2005 22:03:53 GMT
I have also known of long serving Brethren who have refused the Greatest Honour their Lodge can Confer on them of becoming an Honorary Member as this has been the only Lodge they belonged to and they could no longer enjoy Visiting, a great pleasure to many single elderly Brethren, if they had accepted. The greatest honour a Lodge can confer on any of is members, is that of electing him to the Chair of King Solomon. That much is proven by ritual.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 3, 2005 22:35:55 GMT
Leave the Book down for a minute Doric and live in the real world.
When a Brother has given years of service to a Lodge, whether he has been in the Chair to which you refer once, many times, or never, whether he is a Grand Officer of Rank or just an Ordinary Master Mason, then the greatest way he can be shown the appreciation of his Lodge is by making him an Honorary Member or at least it would be if there was not the catch that if that is his only Lodge he will lose the right of Visiting other Lodges more than once because of this silly and outmoded rule.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Jan 3, 2005 23:19:01 GMT
[quote author=Late Knight Chemist
This question is, of course, rhetorical but where is this discussion leading? Is there really any need for change? How many Masons are actually disadvantaged by the current rule?[/quote]
Bruce, the simple fact is this, if you have a deserving Bro in your Lodge who has served not only your Lodge but Freemasonry in General. Offering that Bro Honarary membership is a poisened Chalice. Because as Steve says once he has accepted the 'Honarary' membership he is no longer entitled to visit other Lodges except once, so in all honesty if you are still active like a good friend of mine (my business partner) who has done 56 years in the craft, although he has worked tirelessly for his Lodge the last thing he wants is honarary membership because he could not visit except by breaking this antiquated rule, another thing you may not realise is this, once a person has excepted hon membership he is no longer entitled to vote on any matter brought up in Lodge.
|
|
|
Post by Trinityman on Jan 3, 2005 23:29:58 GMT
There was a situation on the other forum wher a member of a lodge resigned as JW and the lodge due to problems with a member of that lodge. Strangely enough this was in my province and that member visited our lodge at our installation . Under the UGLE rules he is nolonger able to visit any other lodges but my question is : What procedure is in place to stop him visiting any other lodges and if he did not sign the vistors book then who would know,He may well be able to dothis several times before someone raised the question. If he is now looking for a lodge to join he may well want to visit other lodges to see what one he likes so why cany there be a procedure or system in place where he pays a subscription to UGLE for a visiting pass that would enable him to visit other liodges duringthat year without actually being a member of one particular lodge until he find one that is suitable for him to join ? Just to clarify the rule, he can only visit each lodge once, not any lodge once. So if there are 10 lodges in his vicinity he can make 10 visits before joining one (or looking elsewhere).
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 4, 2005 7:55:02 GMT
Thanks for the clarification of that point Trinityman. I thought that is what it meant but I have heard other interpretations, the draconian "Only one other Lodge ever" to the more liberal and perhaps more reasonable but equally incorrect, "Any other Lodge but only once in a given year" and I know that that is the interpretation often put on this rule, be that right or worng, by some Lodges.
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.
|
|