Previous Entry | Next Entry

The Big Picture

  • Feb. 24th, 2006 at 4:10 PM
ash snow
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.

External Pressure Solutions

There are two aspects of external pressure: gain and loss, also known as the carrot and the stick. Normally, a stick is much easier to manifest, since it's relatively simple to build and enforce punishment systems. We have recently seen GL develop a rudimentary stick for the local dues issue: a local body can now deny a member initiation if he is not paying local dues to a satisfactory degree, as determined by that body. Put more bluntly, a potential cost of not paying local dues is the inability to take an initiation (it is potential because the policy is not mandated and there is a 100-mile loophole). If we are going to turn this whiffle bat into a proper stick, it must (1) somehow close the loophole, (2) make the policy required (not merely suggested or allowed) and, (3) make it a mandate for all local bodies to establish in writing what constitutes local good standing, which must include some form of dues structure.

It is certainly possible that a local body can formulate other sticks for non-payment of local dues in their written definition of "local good standing." To a large degree, these sticks will depend on the circumstances of the particular body. That said, the two basic categories of stick are institutional and social. In the former, some kind of organizational rights could possibly be removed, such as the ability to attend certain events or to officer in our Rites. The latter kind of stick cannot be placed in a policy, but can only be developed culturally. Such sticks are those that deliver consequences in the form of social pressure. This can be done responsibly, but it is also possible for this to go awry. For example, it is possible that an initiate who cannot pay dues for a time might be completely ostracized from the community. Local body leaders must be careful that social sticks do not reach the point of abuse or intolerance of any circumstance.

The flip side is developing the carrots; local bodies must strive to articulate the benefits of paying local dues. Like the sticks, there are institutional and social carrots. Common institutional carrots are a free subscription to the body journal, library privileges, discounts on ticketed events or salable products, the ability to produce an event, etc. A very important carrot is the development of transparent financial aims, such that the initiate understands where his money is going and what it is being used for, both in the short and long term. Social carrots should also be established. An example of this could be a symbolic appreciation ceremony for local dues payers, or a framed cert hung on the temple wall with the names (motto or civil) of all those members in "good standing." At the end of the year (or other time frame, like the quarter), an announcement could be made regarding how much was brought in from dues and the successful ways that money was used (important: people are more motivated when they know their contributions are going towards something successful). And because local dues should not be a "money in payment for services" model, the local body should institute some kind of local Stewardship manifesto, to make it clear that while an individual might enjoy certain benefits for payment of dues, the ultimate reason is to invest in the community, so that it can succeed in its greater aims.

Internal Motivation Solutions

This is much more difficult than solutions dealing with external pressure, largely because every motivation is unique. Remember, the two main barriers are insufficient investment in OTO or the local body and particular motivations to avoid paying local dues.

Building investment in OTO is not about money, but about the development of a socio-emotional connection between one's self and both the OTO as a whole and the community of the local body. Because OTO is a volunteer organization, it is vital to promote exactly this kind of investment if we want to build a membership characterized by devotion and participation (including dues-paying). Without personal investment, no amount of policies will increase financial income, and in fact will likely have the opposite effect.

I wrote about this topic in "Community Building, Part II: Member Retention," where I discussed various elements that go into promoting a tightly cohered community. As a brief summary, there were two parts, being a description of all-too-common morale killers that should be eliminated (e.g. cult of poverty, right way battles, social insulation, valuing character below skills and knowledge, and social insulation) and empirically-proven methods that inspire personal identification with the community which leads to a lower incidence of attrition and the development of a more healthy and effective group. The essential key to this is the establishment of trust, both of individual to group and group to individual, which leads to one or both types of cohesion: instrumental (or task-based) and socio-emotional. The essay mentioned many different possible programs for promoting both kinds.

Besides this, when it comes to local dues, there is the issue of initial contact and new membership. This is a sensitive time when a person is in a transitional period. Generally, she is interested and possibly excited about OTO and the local community, but is too new to have developed a deep sense of commitment or identification with them. Local body leaders must be careful to remember that having excitement and curiosity is not the same thing as commitment, which normally takes years to develop. It is not uncommon in my experience to have new folks show up to the local body filled with excitement, even to the point of taking a Minerval, only to disappear when a mountain of expectations is dropped on them. This is not to say that new members should have NO expectations...but a wise local body will find ways to ease newbies into higher levels of obligation at a reasonable pace, so to allow their identity and commitment to the community to mature and deepen.

Now then, about all those motivations to not pay local dues. This is the really hard part, and each of the motivations I mentioned (which likely doesn't exhaust the list) would require an entire essay for each (which I will not torture you with). However, most of these issues have been and are still in discussion here on LJ and in other places, I'm sure. I have addressed the first issue (the belief that money degrades the local OTO environment) at length (such as here). The other issues must be addressed on the local level whenever they might appear. Most of them will not have simple answers. For example, if a member of the Lovers Grade spends all her spare time working on GL and Chapter projects, should she still be required to be a fully participating member at a local body? If a local body has a record of poor money management, is it inappropriate for members to stop paying dues until the situation is fixed? If a member is in such a situation that he can only attend local events rarely, should he be expected to pay as much in dues as those who can take regular advantage of body resources?

I do not think there can be a simple answer for most of these situations. Whatever Grand Lodge does, I hope it allows local bodies to have the flexibility needed to meet these regional challenges. At the same time, I hope that local leaders will take some risks and try out various solutions to these issues, and then report back to the membership at large to let us know what works and what doesn't.

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.

Tags:

Comments

[info]lvx418 wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 12:32 am (UTC)
just tossing out a short comment on break at work - it is such an excellent post i will have to peruse it later when i get home; i think the "carrots" will be a major part in the success (i do not beleive this implementation will fail ;) of the dues program. another question you missed though is ratio: a local body with only 10 members will be paying a LOT more per than one with 20 or 25 members for the same space/items/etc.; how are we going to deal with that? i personally think there might have to be a common denomonator; dues are collected, sent to GL, and they divy it out to the various bodies in due accord - something like that. I guess only time will tell.
[info]ash93 wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 01:06 am (UTC)
The ratio issue is one that the local body will have to solve as it manifests at any given time. To rephrase it a bit, the ratio is #members : $ need. If the number of members is too low to meet the financial need, then the need must either be reduced or there must be attempts to increase membership...perhaps both. This is an issue that should be discussed in the general dues plan for every local body...not only how to fix it when it crops up, but how to avoid it in the first place.
[info]tzaddi_93 wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 02:02 am (UTC)
I have seen posts in other arenas describing local and national dues structures of different organizations. One ratio model that has been described has the local body collecting both local and national dues from the membership and forwarding the national dues to the national body. That might work, depending on how it is structured and how much extra paperwork is created for the local body officers.

I sincerely hope we never develop a structure in which the bulk of monies collected are sent to the national body and then redistributed proportionally to the local bodies. That would be a nightmare of bureaucracy, and it would exponentially increase the workload of officers at the local and national levels. It would also have a huge potential for bottlenecks in the process, which could be crippling to the functioning of local bodies.
[info]kitten_goddess wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 04:02 am (UTC)
Ummm...doesn't Grand Lodge have enough to do already without getting bogged down in local bodies' finances? Besides, what would "in proportion" be, anyway?

This sounds like a Central Planning nightmare.

Of course, I agree with your central point: the carrot, not the stick, should be the central motivation.

[info]christeos_pir wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 12:52 am (UTC)
I strongly believe in the carrot over the stick, especially in a volunteer fraternal organization.

I also believe that accountability works both ways, and that it is as important to strive to ensure that members' needs are being met as the bodies'. This is not a consumerist attitude in my book. Frankly, getting "enough" money at the expense of members' satisfaction in the LB is a no-win situation, and soon may well result in people not only withdrawing from the body, but from the order itself.

That said, I'm not talking about stroking people's egos or playing politics. I am, as I hope I've made clear elsewhere, speaking of responsiveness, a feeling of ownership ("stake"), and of fraternity.

I agree that there must be a balance between evenhanded policy, and ability for local bodies to make reasonable adjustments based on their particular circumstances. Seems to me that the new policy sent out yesterday goes some way towards this. Some bodies may, as a result, make changes to their existing policies and procedures. Others, perhaps seeing themselves in a case of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it,' may elect to do things the way they have.

And I absolutely agree that there are no simple solutions, and would go further and suggest that painting this as a black-or-white issue (especially when ad hominem is added) is facile rhetoric that does no good to anyone.
[info]christeos_pir wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 12:53 am (UTC)
As an aside, some people seem to see the OTO as a club, others as boot camp. I would suggest the actuality lies somewhere in between.
[info]ash93 wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 12:57 am (UTC)
I myself see the Order, especially at the local body level, as a Will Manifestation Incubator and Thelemic Social Experiment (which are really two sides of the same coin).
[info]christeos_pir wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 01:02 am (UTC)
I mean organizationally and in terms of interpersonal interactions.

I agree with you on the above, given the proviso that I haven't gotten all that high up the food chain, and don't know whether the vision of the PTBs is anything beyond what's expressed in the mission statement (i.e., on the magical level).
[info]solis93 wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 01:05 am (UTC)
Frankly, getting "enough" money at the expense of members' satisfaction in the LB is a no-win situation, and soon may well result in people not only withdrawing from the body, but from the order itself.

I have brought this up on several occassions while debating against mandatory dues. The result is that anyone that would quit the OTO over being forced to support a local body shouldn't let the door hit them on the way out.

I really don't care for this "new and improved" attitude toward the OTO, but that is no secret.
[info]christeos_pir wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 01:09 am (UTC)
That would be the "boot camp" team.

Fortunately, policy does not seem as if it's being set by whoever makes the most noise on LJ.

So far.
[info]solis93 wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 01:22 am (UTC)
So far.

hhmmm. You mean to say that GL would have made this new requirement if people hadn't been screaming for it?

For all of the talk of democracy being an undesirable method of running anything, it seems GL tends to get in line with the majority. I could be mistaken.

Some one needs to tell them that "the empty can rattles the loudest."
[info]christeos_pir wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 01:35 am (UTC)
I think that GL tries to balance the demands of the Order's goals, its status both as a fraternal organization and a 501(c)3, and being responsive to the members' needs. Just as I wouldn't want my local body to compromise a strongly held belief in a given course just because one noisy member complained it wasn't *their* vision of what the LB should be doing, I wouldn't want GL to do that either. I think that sometimes compromises are needed when all factors are weighed; other times, if a compromise would, well, *compromise* a core tenet, then they the PTBs need to stick to their guns.

Unless they're in California, in which case they need to stick to their granola. };->
[info]mc156 wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 10:55 pm (UTC)
Hey! We got guns apleny out heah!

sometimes too many people are too busy shooting to get the work done
[info]christeos_pir wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 11:38 pm (UTC)
Shooting off at the mouth (or keyboard) <> quality time at the range.
[info]xeyeofhorusx wrote:
Feb. 26th, 2006 04:19 am (UTC)
PTB?
[info]christeos_pir wrote:
Feb. 26th, 2006 04:25 am (UTC)
Powers That Be
[info]thiebes wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 04:13 am (UTC)
I strongly believe in the carrot over the stick, especially in a volunteer fraternal organization.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work to have a carrot and no stick. Unless you have thousands and thousands of people, and then you still end up spending a major part of your time begging. Look at public radio.
[info]christeos_pir wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 06:10 am (UTC)
Sorry, I was unclear: I didn't mean the one to the exception of the other, but by "over" it I meant to say that it should be used in greater proportion.

(And I would prefer that people not be required to fund *any* given broadcaster. Did I mention I'm a Libertarian?)
[info]thiebes wrote:
Mar. 3rd, 2006 10:39 am (UTC)
The difficulty that I have found with using too much carrot is that it runs the risk of encouraging a consumer approach. In modern America, any encouragement, or perceived encouragement, toward consumerism is very risky. So we can't go crazy with the carrots. I think that SML has, in the past, gone crazy with the carrots a little bit -- in response to a desparate need for funding.

Local bodies today have virtually no stick, because many have found limiting participation impossible to do with any degree of effectiveness given the applicable policies. The announcement from the GTG notwithstanding -- that will make it possible for local bodies to have something of a stick, if they want it.

I am in complete agreement with the idea that carrots should outweigh sticks. I'm of the point of view that we should have a stick, though.

As for public broadcasters, they are very different from us and these differences are part of what I am trying to point out. A public broadcaster has thousands of listeners. They have major fund drives and offer perks and swag to people who are consumers, and other benefits to those generous "patrons of the arts" who get their names engraved on the bricks of the new building. The vast majority of listeners contribute nothing at all. I don't think that the OTO wants to be that kind of organization, do we? Millions of members nationwide, most of whom contribute nothing, while those who do contribute do so out of consumer motivations, or middle-class "patron" motivations? Meanwhile we still would have to devote a large bulk of our time to fund-raising, courting sponsors, and so on? In my opinion this is a bad way to go -- but I guess you probably knew that :)
[info]paradoxosalpha wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 05:44 am (UTC)
Initiation is a "carrot"
Even in the Man of Earth degrees, there's no reason for people to take further initiation through a group that they won't support materially.

National dues are kept low to permit collection of local dues. Local bodies are prohibited from just slapping fees onto initiation that markedly exceed the immediate one-time expenses of the event, as a substitute for local dues. And anyway, OTO was designed as a dues paying organization. It's all over the Blue Equinox material, and all of today's initiates sign off on their understanding of the principle very early in the initiation process.

Yet somehow, people don't see a problem with paying money to USGL for "active membership" without ever supporting a local body where the work actually happens.
[info]christeos_pir wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 06:13 am (UTC)
Re: Initiation is a "carrot"
One other alternative would be higher national dues, with funding going back to the local bodies.

Note that I'm not saying I personally prefer one or the other model -- I can certainly see logistical issues with this. But I can't help but wonder which people would prefer on a psychological level.
[info]christeos_pir wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 06:17 am (UTC)
Re: Initiation is a "carrot"
LOL - posted before I saw Tzaddi93's post.
[info]baal_kriah wrote:
Feb. 26th, 2006 02:31 am (UTC)
Re: Initiation is a "carrot"
And anyway, OTO was designed as a dues paying organization.

I think you mean a dues collecting organization.
[info]kitten_goddess wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 03:57 am (UTC)
93,

What we do at WBO is charge local monthly dues. That covers everything except for a) non-official OTO events and b) special events, such as a luau we had last month. That means that people who pay local dues don't have to get pestered for $5 here and there for Mass, $5 for space rental, etc. Much easier to send in the $25 a month.

And not everyone can afford local dues. I'm speaking of those brothers and sisters who are unemployed. Those people should not be punished if they can't pay local dues.

I think that the requirement for paying local dues before taking your next degree is a good idea. That may actually motivate the unemployed to find a job! However, that does not address those who take their initations at a different body. I took two of my initiations at other bodies. And what about those cases where someone attends two local bodies? I was a member of two local bodies at one time for about two years. This latter case may be more common on the West Coast, where there are more OTO bodies.
[info]stevensteven wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 04:41 am (UTC)
'd rather have them putting their money and effort into a profess house system.

No on is punished for temporary financial hardship. Every local body has a method to help those with temporary financail hardship maintain good standing.
[info]ajrose93 wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 10:30 am (UTC)
"Internal Motivation Solutions"
93, Ash!

As a longtime stay-away (as distinct from freeloader) Minerval, persuaded to support the local body by these recent discussions -- not least by the thoughtfulness of your own posts -- I wanted to jump in to (1) thank you, and (2) mention an issue that may be too obvious to those dealing with this day-to-day to be worth mentioning...but what the hey, I don't know any better. Anyway, given your studies, you might find it interesting.

When my late dad was in the service (Army) in WWII, the military was running a psych study to try to determine who (by profile) belonged in which service, and in particular who would be happiest serving in planes, ships, and submarines. They tried every testing model they could think of. Know which one proved out the most effective?

Asking the candidate which form of service appealed to them.

Similarly -- and I'm thinking, I'm embarrassed to say, of my own case here -- sometimes people aren't local dues current (or, like me, attending anything at all) because they are harboring an internal grudge, perhaps without even fully realizing it. National membership without local participation can be a way of saying, "I belong to Crowley's [or, say, Aiwass's] OTO. The heck with you guys."

So, in re: "Internal Motivation Solutions," maybe asking could help, sometimes -- uncongenial as it may be to the "pay up or good riddance!" people: something like, "We notice you're not participating fully at the local level. Is everything okay?" This is perfectly businesslike, btw; Time Inc. used to contact former subscribers all the time to ask what they did wrong. Some were sufficiently charmed to resubscribe.

Anyway, mainly posted to say thanks again. Your posts helped a lot. :)

93 93/93 -- AJ
[info]ash93 wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2006 06:47 pm (UTC)
Re: "Internal Motivation Solutions"
Thanks for your kind words. :)

Something I wrote about a couple of posts ago regarded a conversation I had with my wife, and closely mirrors your final thought. Perhaps a more articulated way of putting it is such:

If a situation arises where a once-paying member suddenly isn't or one who has been taking advantage of LB resources without paying dues, then I think the most effective method of dealing with it is:

1) Have an appropriate officer approach him personally with the intent of helping the member solve a problem. The solution will depend on the situation, natch, and it is always better to find out why a person isn't paying in and not assume that he "just isn't into OTO" or whatever. Once the "why" is determined, then the responsible, effective, and cordial thing to do would be to find a way to work with that person to get that pay-in, whether it be an increase in time and energy, a temporary waiver, or perhaps a simple conversation about the merits of stewardship. Local leadership should have on hand, in writing, all the various options available to help members achieve good standing in a fair way.

2) If patient and intelligent problem-solving doesn't work, and the member continues to avoid solutions, then apply whatever sticks might be most effective. This way, if the member complains, the leadership can honestly say that non-punishment solutions were offered, and the member chose to refuse them. It places the responsibility firmly on the shoulders of the initiate.

So, in a nutshell, I completely agree with your assessment. I strongly believe that a local body that wants to have a healthy percentage of members in "good standing" has the responsibility of working with the community to make that happen. It has to be a team effort, and our local leadership must not be afraid to reach out to people. They might be surprised at how well it works.
[info]tzaddi_93 wrote:
Feb. 26th, 2006 04:58 am (UTC)
Re: "Internal Motivation Solutions"
1) Have an appropriate officer approach him personally with the intent of helping the member solve a problem. The solution will depend on the situation, natch, and it is always better to find out why a person isn't paying in and not assume that he "just isn't into OTO" or whatever.

Thank you thank you thank you for saying that. The repeated assumption that anyone who is not paying local dues is a deadbeat who just wants to freeload has really been grating on me. The times that I have tried to state that perhaps there are other reasons why someone isn't paying or why a particular body is having difficulty collecting dues and that these reasons should be examined in order to rememdy them, I have gotten some really negative (and sometimes quite rude) responses.