Because you all just can't get enough of this topic, I wanted to take a moment to share what I've been seeing as the totally of the local dues issue.

Aim: to increase the quality of our local bodies via methods that are both fair and effective.

Top-level Problem: generally, our local bodies are not bringing in enough money to meet increasing standards of quality, such as the acquisition of a temple space.

Level Two Problem: in general, there exists an unfair and ineffective imbalance between initiates who locally pay no dues, those who pay some dues, and those few who carry the greater part of the local financial burden.

Level Three Problem: for too many members, there is a lack of (either or both) external pressure and internal motivation to pay-in at the local level.

Level Four Problems:
    A) External
        1) There are few, if any, incurred costs to not paying dues (e.g. losing: income, time, possessions, bodily freedom, etc.)
        2) There are few, if any, personal benefits to paying dues (e.g. gaining: as above)
    B) Internal
        1) Not enough personal investment into OTO/local body to overcome various barriers to pay-in
        2) Motivation to avoid payment of dues for various reasons:
                a) belief that money degrades the local OTO environment
                b) lack of trust in how money will be used or handled
                c) unable to take full advantage of pay-in (e.g. living far away or being time-burdened)
                d) in protest against either personal or institutional circumstances
                e) belief that efforts on the inter/national or non-MoE Grade level supercede local participation

If we are going to succeed in our Aim, we have to address all of these levels by creating various goals and objectives, some of which will be policy-based, while others will be oriented towards cultural change. Generally, the way to get to our Aim is to increase both external pressure and internal motivation.

( Some ideas on various solutions... )
Final Word

There has been a lot of talk about local dues of late, and I like a lot of what I'm hearing. I think we are headed in the right direction. I simply wanted to point out that the underlying issue is far more complex than "should members pay local dues or not?" Yes, we should more clearly define what we expect from members locally. At the same time, we should not forget that the local body leadership is largely responsible for the health of the community and has many tools available to inspire participation and greater levels of committment. Moreover, local bodies have an obligation to make pay-in worthwhile, with the development of things like setting responsible financial goals, having appropriate transparency, and conforming to accounting best practices. It is a two way street, and we are all going to have to work together to reach our final Aim: to increase the quality of our local bodies via methods that are both fair and effective.

Okay, to break down the latest communique from the GTG, here is what I come up with:

1) A local body may choose to make "local good standing" a prerequisite of initiation elegibility or participtation, which cannot be applied to members living more than 100 miles away.

2) Local bodies must stop accepting travel costs as credit for initiation fees or USGL dues.

3) Every local body master may define "local good standing" more or less however s/he chooses, including regular payment of local dues and things like exemptions and waivers.

There is one thing missing in this formula. In order for this to have teeth, it needs one more clause:

4) All local bodies must establish, in writing, the conditions that clearly define "local good standing," which must include some form of a local dues structure. This is subject to the approval of the Electoral College.

Perhaps the Areopagus is still working this one out...

The issue of local dues has been a hot one around these parts. It is an important issue that needs resolving at the Grand Lodge level in terms of policy and locally in terms of cultural norms. I have noticed a subtle but important shift recently in the ideas presented here. At one time, there was a coalition of LJers (myself included) who were rather hardline about the idea of all members being required to pay a minimum level of monetary dues, even if it were to a local body in a separate valley. I believe this position was borne of a mixture of frustration regarding free-riders and a renewed vision of what local bodies could accomplish (notably in light of the "Blue Equinox" model) if only they had a reasonable amount of income.

The recent shift has moved away, or rather expanded from this view. I think that more and more folks are starting to see "dues" as being more than money. There is absolutely no doubt that money is a vital aspect of "dues," but there is a new recognition (or maybe a new voicing of an old recognition) that time and energy are of equal value to the overall well-being of a local body. It is arguable that a body would need to balance all three resources (money, time, and energy) in order to maintain optimal balance and efficacy...after all, what good is a cash-wealthy community filled with low-participation, low-energy members?

This is largely what the Three Pillars of Stewardship tries to illustrate. The First Pillar represents this expanded vision of "dues," which states that a local Steward would donate as much time, energy, and money as available. The Second and Third Pillars suggest two of the core fraternal ways that such energy and time be spent (i.e. in service to the community and in fraternal support of one's siblings).

With this in mind, I have changed my position somewhat on the local dues issue. The primary shift is that instead of making a mandate to individual initiates, Grand Lodge should make it a requirement for all MoE bodies to institute some form of local dues policy and, just as important, make it such that agreement to participate in a local dues program be a requirement for defining "local membership." USGL should, of course, offer various dues program templates, eventually with data to show their various strengths and weaknesses (i.e. we need to do research to find out what kind of dues programs really work, and in what environments, meaning that a sub-obligation would be for all local bodies to track relevant data).

The shift from individual to local body comes in light of what I and others (such as solis93) believe---that if all members are obligated to pay local dues across the board, this takes the pressure off of local leaders to make it worthwhile. Although OTO is not a democracy, and shouldn't be in most cases, local members need to be allowed to "vote with their feet" in response to poor local leadership. Although some have suggested in such a case that local dues can be paid to any local body (which is already true, of course), this would certainly have more negative effects, with members being forced to pay to local bodies where they cannot participate, have no voice, and can reap none of the fraternal benefits. Plus, on the Grand Lodge level, I can only imagine the nightmare of trying to track several thousand members to see if they are paying local dues and where. No, the costs would far outweigh the benefits with a member-mandated policy.

As for dues programs, the fact is we simply don't know enough yet to determine which ones work, and to what degree. There are, however, several basic templates that we could offer, with local bodies making adjustments to them to meet local needs. For example:

The Strict Model: In this model, dues are set at a single amount, and that's that. Either the initiate pays it or she isn't a member.

The Semi-Strict Model: This one has a set dues amount, but has some built-in flexibility, such as providing waivers or vouchers for hardship.

The Low-Minimum Model: This one is a sub-set of the above, but asks only for a very low amount, such as $31 a year.

The Pledge Model: Here, each member pledges a regular amount that they choose on their own.

The Sliding Scale Model: Like it sounds, members pay a percentage according to a formula based on income/outgoing levels.

These are just off the top of my head...I'm sure there are other workable models. Also, it is possible to cross-breed some of these models in various ways...as I said, they are only templates that would be open to modification.

As a reminder, the idea of being a local Steward is more than money...it includes time and energy. A fair dues program would find a way to take these two into consideration.

The final important note is based on a conversation I had with alethea93 the other day, which deals with enforcement. Every local dues program should have a clear model for how to deal with both free-riders and members who are behind on payment. I do not believe it is enough simply to note that a person hasn't paid, and therefore is kept off the membership rolls. Rather, certain leaders should be responsible for initiating a conversation with such folks, NOT to berate them for not paying, but to help find a way to get their level of Stewardship up. It would be done in a spirit of cordiality and service (at least in cases that don't involve repeated abuse of privileges). This is where the First Pillar comes in handy...if someone isn't paying money because he lost his job, the local leadership could present options that rely more heavily on time and energy. Again, a dues program should include methods of tracking all such situations for later analyzing.

Anyway, this summarizes my current position on local dues. It is so difficult, to balance between the financial needs of the body, consideration for individual members, and the practical implementation of processes. As such, I offer these ideas for consideration, such as they're worth.