Don’s Diary
– A way ahead
The principal
“product” offered by Freemasonry is membership of a fraternity, open to all
good men regardless of their race or religion, providing they recognise a
Supreme Being, with a unique strong moral code of ethical behaviour and who do
good things for society.
Instead of forming
Grand Lodges, if there has been the communications and organisational
sophistication we have today, the early Craft lodges in staging-post, and city
pubs could have achieved a standardisation of the code of ethical behaviour,
dress and ritual by the lodges participating in committees leading to
accreditation alone. Today, Grand Lodges
should not be seen or established to be a franchisor of these standards with
Craft lodges being the franchisees. A
better analogy would be a producer cooperative where the operators or producers,
that is the Craft lodges, see some benefit in having a coordinating body which
can afford economic benefits and represent and advance their interests in the
wider society. Something similar is done
now in industry associations and in professional bodies and many offer useful
organisational models. Sometimes
membership of such professional bodies is mandatory for individuals and
businesses. Grand Lodges should not be seen
as ends in themselves but a means to an end, community standing and membership,
organisations that are managed effectively and efficiently.
When the United Grand
Lodge of England was formed, with the Queen Victoria’s father’s brother
becoming the first Grand Master in 1813, he brought with him a community
status, social connections, and a deep commitment to advancing the Brotherhood
of Man. The status of Freemasonry was
repositioned (in a marketing sense) from being a pub activity to one of highest
status in the country. This made the
“product”, the membership of the fraternity, more appealing to the broader
society and especially its leaders. If a
Grand Lodge today does not achieve this, one has to question its raison
d'être.
Whilst it is
important to have leaders who have the respect of the rank and file fraternity
in Craft lodges, the selection of leaders in the Craft should give primary
consideration to those that can “position” Freemasonry in the broader community
and cause leading citizens to aspire to membership that others will follow. The Grand Lodge organisational arrangements
should be focussed on supporting our leaders to carry out this external
role.
One could be excused
for thinking that the Board of General Purposes under the Constitution having
both executive as well as advisory functions is dysfunctional within our
organisation. Most Freemasons would
expect that our two senior positions, our Grand Master and his Deputy, who have
recently been elected democratically, will have a direct unfettered line of
responsibility and accountability through the Grand Secretary and Craft Lodges
to ordinary “rank and file” Freemasons.
We would expect there to be advisory committees to provide expert advice
on a range of matters. However, we would
not welcome anything that looks like a grab for power and the establishment of
an alternative line of management. As
Freemasons we want our Grand Master to be more than just a figurehead. We would not like any organisation that is
established by a committee or board and reports to it that undercuts the
authority of the Grand Master and the Grand Secretary or create organisational
friction. I understand that such was the
case of the organisation led by our former CEO.
It is hard to see how we can move ahead and let the Grandmaster do his
duty if he is “helped” in this way. If
the Grand Secretary in under resourced, then, providing the tasks really need
to be done and cannot be undertaken in a more cost effective way, give him the
resources. It is not appropriate to
attempt to over-service Craft lodges, do “busy work” and suffer inefficiencies
in non-line management areas, and expect ordinary Freemasons just to pay for
these follies.
It is difficult
sorting out an overgrown organisation that has become an end in itself, whose
development has not been subject to market forces, an apparent bottomless pit
of funds available much of which has come from the sale of assets bought in the
past by earlier generations with other people’s hard earned money, an
organisation that has seemed to have developed a life of its own. Non-cost solutions should be identified and
those that should be user-pay and user do.
High expectations of organisational paternalism, now common in our
society, should be balanced with the knowledge of both the cost and realisation
of the benefits of self-help including self-satisfaction. There may be scope for outsourcing. Volunteers in the past from the Grand Master
down have provided an enormous service and it is hoped that this will continue.
No other Order in Freemasonry, recognising that they do not own property, has
the high overheads seen in the Craft, yet rituals are taxing, work is to high
standards, and usually there is good administration. The Craft overheads were much lower years ago
when there were many more Freemasons and more property, yet no computer
information technology and poorer communications. Does this say something about our higher
administration practices?
I am confident our
new Grand Master will capably address any matters of concern with diligence and
professionalism. He deserves our support.
Yours fraternally,
Don