Re: GL results from California?
- From: Torence <torenceake@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:45:17 CST
On Oct 29, 3:24 pm, Steve Crane <steve_cr...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The problem was that when originally instituted a member couldOurs was set-up as 15 times the yearly dues. The original proposal
buy Life membership for 21 times the current Lodge dues.
in the eighties was also for a 21 year payment; but the Grand Lodge
was taking Life Membership Programs away from Lodges that ran their
own Life Membership schemes and wanted to offer a reduced rate as an
inducement for lodges to surrender their arrangements.
But when a Brother signs up, 15 years of per capita which was then
$7 and is now $10 immediately goes to a Grand Lodge Life Membership
Fund from which the Grand Lodge draws the interest. But the Grand
Lodge does not deem it necessary to report to us separately this
interest from other interest and dividends. In 2009, our budgeted
interest and dividends were $250,000 and we realized $265,719. But the
plan was also to post a gain on the sale of investments of $195,000.
We lost, instead, <$21,002>. (It is that last $2 that really irks me).
I do not know if the Grand Lodge actually draws off their interest as
was the original intent. If they do not and were to start, that action
could mitigate at least to some degree the need to draw from our Homes
and Homes Endowment Funds to operate. This year those totals equaled <
$148,700>. Our Homes Endowment Fund lost another <$10,637,230> despite
our action here in Illinois to sell our Retirement Home to a private
The Local Lodge gets the remainder ($25 if their dues are $35, more
if they raise dues above State minimum) credited to a Lodge Life
Membership Fund for every member from which the Local Lodge draws the
interest annually and no longer pays per capita to the Grand Lodge for
the member. My lodge receives annually anywhere from $1,000 to $1,200
but the results for 2009 will not be seen until January.
But, Lodges here are not allowed control of the principal amounts
even in our theoretically own Local Lodge Life Membership Fund. A
withdraw, say for a principal amount that represents our dead members,
can only be made by order of the Grand Master. Grand Masters in our
recent past have refused any withdraw even when they have expelled
members whose jib was not cut to their specifications. That refusal
then gives the expelled members a property right which is just one
basis for a cause of action.
The new legislation proposed included provisions to raise the Life
Membership Investment to 20 years and correct these and other
Generally speaking, it is a 20th Century approach to Masonry and not
a 21st Century one whereby Lodges and Grand Lodges operate from large
roles of indolent names. Brothers who attend no Lodge and do not
participate with them other than as dues paying and/or Life Members
have no chance to get much that is worthwhile from their memberships.
Whatever the terms of payment, this approach to doing our business is
doomed to extinction because 21st Century men have jibs that are cut
more square. My question about the condition is whether or not the
Craft is ready for the change that is already well underway? When we
answer that, then we can consider what the best form of government is
for us to keep as well as how best to finance it.
Torence Evans Ake
Senior Deacon & Secretary Pro Tem
Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 ? Crete, Illinois
PM ? Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 ? Lansing, Illinois
- Prev by Date: Re: Visit to Grand Lodge of Colombia in Bogota - Four Elements
- Next by Date: Re: In Canada...
- Previous by thread: Re: GL results from California?
- Next by thread: Re: GL results from California?