I put up a blog post on Veteran's Day about our membership struggles in masonry compared to the membership issues facing other military, fraternal, veteran, and social organizations. I pointed out that among all of the examples (military services, college fraternities, veterans' organizations, etc.) the United States Marine Corps (USMC) stands out, far in the lead in both recruiting and retention. Among them all, only the Marines have maintained their original recruiting and induction standards, their original training standards, and their expected high performance and behavioral standards while also still enjoying a high level of interest and desire among perspective recruits. I left off by posing one question for us, for our fraternity to consider, "what do you suppose they know that we might be missing and what lessons might we learn from Tun Tavern"?
Let us return briefly to Tun Tavern which, by the way, was also recognized in the 1700's as the seat of Masonic teachings in America at the time. The tavern hosted the inaugural conference of American Freemasonic order as well as the election of the first Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania in 1732. I think with credentials such as these it is entirely appropriate to look there - to our own roots - as we ponder the future of our masonic order.
After I posted "Lessons from Tun Tavern" (Click the Link) on Veteran's Day, something nagged me for several hours before I was able to see it take form and become clear. What emerged was a question that we might pose - at least rhetorically - to initiate some serious thought and an effective conversation about the future of masonic membership and the state of our lodges as we enter that future. Follow me now back to Tun Tavern.
I pose this simple though certainly controversial and seemingly un-serious question for your consideration and (mostly) to stimulate substantive discussions:
"What would your lodge do and how would it impact our fraternity if we passed a resolution at the next Grand Communication that limited our lodges - all lodges - to three candidate initiations (three EA's) per masonic year?"
Remember the context in which this question was born - the USMC has a yearly cap or limit
on how many recruits they will be allowed to induct into the service. They do various qualification tests such as the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, they do investigative criminal background checks on each candidate, they publicly boast about how hard it is to join and then, after joining they brag about how hard it is to complete boot camp; yet in light of all of that they still have a waiting list each year for men and women who want to join and become one of the proud and one of the few.
While it might seem outrageous to suggest capping EA initiations at three per year per lodge and perhaps it is, I ask you to play it out in your mind anyway as a way of provoking ideas and discussions about our existing membership concerns. Some lodges today regularly initiate many new Entered Apprentices every year while some probably struggle to initiate three, so what would the effect of such a new rule be? It is worth pointing out that throughout our jurisdiction retention is just as significant a concern as initiating new members and we are seeing some troubling numbers for those failing to complete their EA and FC work; is there something that might be buried within the discussion of my preposterous suggestion of capping the number of EA's that might address this?
As I worked my way through this counter-intuitive idea of limiting our initiations and as I considered all of the various effects from such a law, I realized some companion changes to our law book and procedures might be necessary to make this work on a practical basis. To advance this exercise, here is a list of all of the changes I think we would need to make to implement such a cap on membership and still generate positive effects:
1. Cap all lodges at three EA's per masonic year
2. Remove the requirement to ballot on a petition within 30 days - change it to say instead that all petitions formally read in lodge must be balloted at Stated Meeting not later than the final Stated Meeting of the masonic year - this would allow lodges to establish longer and more effective "Getting to Know You" timelines where they can get to know potential petitioners and complete effective, thorough investigations
3. Allow lodges to appoint a committee and begin investigations upon receipt of the petition instead of waiting until after it is formally read in lodge
4. Allow a lodge to reject a petition out of hand without prejudice and without a formal reading in an open lodge - a lodge might identify their three desired candidates early in the year and would then be allowed to return any further petitions to those additional prospective petitioners without prejudice - meaning they could then legally petition any other lodge and answer truthfully that they have not previously petitioned any other lodge
Now, having set those practical conditions, let's proceed with this exercise and see what we might discover. Lodges with high initiation rates would be the first ones to feel the effects of a "three initiation" cap so let's begin our exploration there.
If your lodge traditionally initiates more than three EA's per year and you suddenly found your lodge capped at three, what adjustments would you have to make? If you have three "slots" and eight prospective candidates interested in petitioning your lodge for the degrees, how do you identify the three best candidates? This is where I think the other proposed changes will work in favor of the lodges. Lodges in the situation I've described could accept the petitions of all eight and immediately begin their investigations, yet still withhold a formal reading in lodge. The lodge can also set a formal "getting to know you" period where the eight prospective candidates might attend functions, socialize with lodge members, and volunteer time and labor to assist the lodge with programs and chores as a way of demonstrating not only their seriousness, but their intent to be active in lodge. Imagine having eight prospective candidates that you have been observing for nine months and some of them are obviously eager to be part of the lodge while the others perhaps only attend to share in meals. In my theoretical scenario, this lodge could simply return the unread petitions to the "less than eager" prospective's and then forward the petitions and investigative reports of the serious contenders to the Secretary to read in lodge.
Can I prove that the prospective candidates selected in this example would be hard charging brothers who are guaranteed to finish their work and be active in lodge? No, I can't say that with one hundred percent certainty, but over the span of nine or ten months where we watch and interact with all of the prospective candidates I think we can say that we accepted the petitions from those that seemed most likely to finish their work and become active. Our three "EA slots" for this year would now be filled by petitioners that we believe are likely to meet our expectations and are most likely to be successful in masonry. Think of it in the context of our Tun Tavern ancestors; Marine recruiters will interview prospective recruits and, if they select them, they'll tell the prospective recruit to use the time before he is inducted and takes his oath of office to get ready physically and mentally for the challenges that lay ahead. A more-or-less formal "getting to know you period" in the lodges might allow the brethren to go through a similar process in getting their prospective petitioners ready for their initiation and obligation.
For lodges that are typically under the proposed cap, we might be safe in speculating that men that can't get into lodges that are "capped out" for the year might visit and ask to petition at some of these smaller lodges and provide a boost to those membership rolls. I freely admit this is less than ideal because a man's participation and attendance is always heavily impacted by the distance he has to travel to lodge, but with an extended "getting to know you" period where the man is visiting the lodge frequently coupled with the new option to investigate early and delay the ballot, it might be possible for those smaller lodges to identify those who are impacted by time, distance, and life's conflicts, or even those who may be less-than-serious about their intentions to become a mason before they are initiated. These smaller lodges have the same options to return a petition without prejudice and preserve one of their three precious EA slots for the year.
It is quite possible that in a new environment of capped EA slots across the state, many small lodges would see an uptick in visits by prospective petitioners in search of lodges with uncommitted EA slots and those lodges might then also enjoy being in a position to select their three EA's from an expanded pool of interested prospects.
So what is the basis for this little exercise? Why should we even consider capping membership when our top concern for the future of masonry is the perception that our member rolls are shrinking? Perhaps we should consider the allure of an organization that is only available to the few, the dedicated, and the serious in the same fashion as our fellow Tun Tavern ancestors. There is something enticing about an organization that says "we don't take just anyone and we expect and demand much from those we do select".
I am frequently accused of - and I will admit to - being resistant to change (for the sake of change). But I am not reflexively resistant to all changes - if they make sense for the fraternity and do not disrupt, threaten, or alter the intent of our masonic ritual(s). The premise of this particular thought exercise is obviously to consider a change - however unrealistic - that might provide one way to raise our bar, raise our standards, and become much more selective in who we accept as masons among us, identifying and focusing on those most likely to finish their degree work and contribute to their lodges. Yes, we might become smaller, but perhaps our bonds and the fraternity will grow stronger!
On the other hand it is also possible that strengthening our reputation as a organization of the few, select men of quality and impeccable reputations and one that touts a quiet mystique might renew a societal curiosity in masonry that might ultimately increase our membership numbers over time and do so by attracting those men most likely to be successful and productive in the fraternity and in our communities.
Two organizations, both with roots in Tun Tavern and both imbued with the principles and beliefs necessary to go forward to found, fight for, and protect our great nation. One of these organizations continues marching resolutely forward today, accepting only the best while leaving others wanting, waiting, and wishing for an opportunity; the other questioning its membership trends and its very future. I ask again, what might we learn from our ancestors of Tun Tavern?
Travel on my worthy brothers - and do not be afraid to ponder the big questions using unorthodox working tools!
BroBill
Comments