Bad Report, Inactivity, and Sabbaticals

Fr. Αληθέυω

Sabazius X° has posted a series of brief notes on his LiveJournal to clarify various states of uninvolvement and ex-membership that are presently defined in the O.T.O. On the one hand, it is nice to see these things laid out and defined so that the differences between them can be understood by all. On the other hand, the definitions themselves, and more importantly the basic thoughts underlying the nomenclature, seem rather problematic.

To begin with, in the article on “Resignation and Bad Report,” we are told:

Yes, we have a policy that members who resign are automatically placed on “bad report” status. However, this does not mean that resigned members cannot attend local public-access events or ever be readmitted. “Bad report” status— unless accompanied by specific curtailment of privileges— means that you can’t be advanced (if you’re still a member) or readmitted (if you’re not) without an Executive decision to lift your “bad report” status.

What this seems to suggest is that the term “bad report” as employed by the O.T.O. doesn’t really mean what it appears to. The obvious and literal meaning of “bad report,” which is consistent with its historical origins in Freemasonry, is that there have been reports concerning misconduct or bad character regarding an individual, of sufficient number, severity, and reliability to arouse concern as to that individual’s suitability to be a member of the Order. If resignation is considered to convey an implicit “bad report,” one possible inference that might be drawn is that the Order regards resignation as a form of apostasy, just as Muslims regard ex-Muslims.

However, I think a more likely explanation is to be found in an analysis of the engineering mentality, since so many of U.S. Grand Lodge’s leaders (including Sabazius himself) have a professional background in one form or another of engineering. I think what has happened here is that, the condition of “bad report” having been already defined as to its effect on an individual’s participation in O.T.O. events, it was discovered that this was very similar to the effects of resignation. Rather than define the effects of resignation independently, then, USGL decided, in effect, that the condition of having resigned was “bad report” plus some additional properties. Anyone with a basic understanding of Object-Oriented Programming can, at this point, readily imagine an inheritance hierarchy in which a class called Resigned inherits from a base class called BadReport.

The trouble with this is that this sort of convenience-motivated re-use of definitions is both indicative of, and promotes, semantic confusion. Placing a member on bad report is a disciplinary action that presumes misconduct on the part of the member, but the act of resigning one’s membership carries no such connotation. It is, therefore, misleading to associate the two based on superficial similarities. In software engineering, this sort of inappropriate re-use is understood to be, as programmers like to say, a Bad Thing; it is sometimes called spaghetti inheritance due to the obvious analogy between it and spaghetti code.

More problematic by far, though, are Sabazius’ notes on “Inactive Status” and “Sabbatical.” These are both forms of quasi-resignation in which a member voluntarily ceases to be involved with the Order and stops paying dues to Grand Lodge, but is maintained on the membership roster and can restore himself to full enjoyment of all membership privileges simply by paying dues again. The difference between the two is simply that sabbatical status must be requested by a member and requires executive approval, whereas inactive status is applied automatically when a member’s dues are over a year in arrears.

It is sensible that some form of sabbatical status is available for those members who may, for one reason or another, find that it will be impossible for them to carry out their duties to the O.T.O. for some period of time. But the fact that those on sabbatical are not required to maintain dues-current status is appalling, and further evidence that the Order is not taken seriously even by its own leaders. If the O.T.O. were a serious organization pursuing serious goals, members would not be allowed to shirk their dues under any circumstances save— perhaps— dire financial hardship (which is a completely separate issue from the need to take a sabbatical). Nor would serious, committed members want to stop paying dues. If the work of the Order is seen to be important, then every available penny and every available bit of its members’s time and energy is needed. If a member’s time is anticipated to be in short supply for some legitimate reason, a sabbatical may be appropriate, but this is no reason to stop paying dues. If anything, a serious O.T.O. devoted to serious work would require a member to pay extra to go on sabbatical to make up for the loss of his non-financial contributions during his sabbatical.

While there is merit in the sabbatical concept, “inactive” status as currently practiced is an embarrassment. For an inactive member to be restored to full membership, he need not pay all the dues he has avoided paying; he need only either pay double his annual dues, or pay one year’s dues and immediately take initiation into his next degree. In essence, this means that the Order requires, at most, dues for the current year and one year of back dues. A member who has not paid dues in five years will never have to pay dues for four of those years, and he can avoid paying any back dues at all by taking his next degree right away. This is not indicative of a serious organization pursuing serious goals; this is the way casual social clubs and organizations built on a fee-for-services model work.

It is debatable, by the way, whether someone who has only just reactivated his membership should even be allowed to take further initation right away, without some evidence that they actually intend to remain actively involved with the Order. Nothing, apparently, prevents a member from reactivating just to take his next initiation and then disappear again. Is this really something the Order should allow? Should it not be discouraged by, say, requiring a full year of active membership?

It is further evidence of the lack of seriousness in today’s O.T.O. that the notion of “inactive membership” means nothing more than being behind on dues. The O.T.O. does not require, or track, the actual involvement of its initiates in local body activities. A member who pays his GL dues every year, but never shows up at any local body, suffers no censure and can go on in that way indefinitely. A serious organization would require much more of the membership than an annual dues payment, and would distinguish between active contribution and mere dues-paying.

What is, perhaps, most disturbing about these new notes from Sabazius is the apparent lack of awareness of the way they leave his administration open to criticisms such as those raised in this essay. One of USGL’s most notable characteristics is their utter lack of substantive self-criticism, and accordingly, the complete absence of any ability to see themselves as others see them. However badly they fumble, however glaringly obvious their ineptitude, however much their own statements and conduct validate many of the harshest criticisms leveled against them, they roll serenely on, oblivious to everything, sequestered in their little world of fantasy. It might be sort of cute if it were not so dismally pathetic, and if the world’s need for a real, serious, competently-run O.T.O. were not so great.

19 August 2008 e.v.