

                            Introductory Questions

#: 69258 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    25-Dec-94  18:24:49
Sb: Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: All

Brethren,

In view of some recent messages here, and Bro. Allen Roberts' comments for
years about Masonic balloting, would it be interesting and useful to have a
discussion about how voting is done in Lodges?  I had not thought too much
about this until reading Allen's "The Tyranny of the Ballot Box" and reading,
hearing about, and actually seeing some examples of what all reasonable people
would consider to be misuses of the manner in which we allow voting to take
place.

1.  Why is it considered good, and a "right" of Masons, to vote against
someone becoming a member of our lodges without showing respect for our
brethren by telling them the reason?  If it is to keep peace within the lodge,
then can't we talk about this in lodge, openly, in a kind and peaceful manner.
The brother who feels that Mr. X is not fit might find that a quiet discussion
discloses that Mr. X did not do what he thought Mr. X had done. Even if Mr.
X's father is in the lodge, if there is a reason for the son to be voted down,
couldn't that be done in a considerate manner.  The father's feelings could be
hurt much more by anonymous and unexplained rejection of his son.

2.  I have personally seen the current secret ballot system used to vote
against a man whose qualifications on paper were better than most, but who it
was whispered was of a different race.  I have also seen the owner of an auto
sales agency voted down, possibly because someone did not like a car they
bought at his business, possibly for other reasons.  We have also seen
messages on this Forum of equally improper uses of the secret ballot.  I have
seen talk of the "right" of each Mason to have his ballot kept secret forever,
but why? Especially why, if the purpose or result of this is to allow the
lodge to be brought to the lowest common denominator of bigotry (possibly).
Please note that I am NOT saying that all negative votes are the result of
that, but some are.  Why are those protected?

3.  What about the "rights" of the other members of the lodge, those who feel
that a candidate should be elected?  Why are their rights to have their
opinions, which might be based on stronger arguments that the one who votes
no, not as important as the one negative person?  (Again, I realize this is
not always the case; there could be more than one negative.  But sometimes
everyone but one strongly wants to vote someone in, but the one person's
rights take precedence over the others.  Why?)

4.  Most importantly, we are taught to respect each other (those of us who are
already Masons).  What kind of respect are we showing when we do not share
reasons for voting against someone with our brethren?  Maybe our reasons are
good ones, but we feel they are best kept confidential.  I can understand
that, and have felt that way myself at times.  But if we really respect our
brethren, then even if it is difficult shouldn't we be expected, required, to
explain ourselves to our brethren.  And if we feel it is imperative that the
reasons given for voting against a candidate must be kept within the lodge,
can't we say that to our brethren, and shouldn't it be expected that our
confidences will be kept?

5.  On the most mundane level, we have heard stories that Mr. Smith was voted
down, because someone had heard that Mr. Smith was a criminal, etc., only to
find that another Mr. Smith was really the one.  So Masonry lost someone who
could have been good, and that person probably was embittered, with good
reason.  If the person voting no had to state the reasons, another member
could have said that the candidate was being mixed up with another, or the
Master could have directed further investigation.

To take it a step further, and again I am not sure of my own opinions on this,
should just one, or even just three, negative votes be considered sufficient
to reject someone?  If many more brethren feel strongly (I know often then
don't, but what if they do with regard to a candidate) that someone should be
admitted, why should such as small number overrule them? Maybe it should not
be a majority vote, but why are the views of 1 or 3 given more weight than the
views of many others?

In summary, aren't there enough reasons to end the "tyranny of the ballot box"
and say that in Lodges we will reject candidates when brethren speak up and
tell us about legitimate reasons for rejecting them, and not otherwise?

I am not wedded to this opinion, but would welcome a discussion about this
subject.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 69259 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    25-Dec-94  18:50:43
Sb: #69258-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: All

A quick addendum to the previous message to start a discussion of voting in
lodges ---

Shouldn't we discuss the subject of voting in several different areas?

The most important, and most controversial, is voting on candidates to receive
the degrees.

But we also vote on brother Masons who are asking to affiliate with our
lodges.  They already have the right to visit as often as they like, without
paying any dues.  Then, when they want to become full members we take a vote,
and (I believe) just one or three votes, cast anonymously and without reasons,
or without good reasons, can keep them out.  Is this right?

Lastly, in my jurisdiction we also vote on whether each EA and FC catechism
has been delivered with proper proficiency.  Why?  Isn't it enough if the
Master declares that the proficiency is satisfactory or not?  What is the
reason for asking all lodge members, some of who may have completely forgotten
the catechism, if they feel what they have heard is satisfactory?

I just wanted to add this to the previous list of questions, to point out that
the questions apply to all more aspects of voting in the lodge than just on
candidates.

In fact, while I am thinking of it, why do we have open voting on issues
involving lodge policies and finances, but not matters relating to candidates,
affiliations, etc.?  Some of the voting on issues can be just as divisive as
voting on candidates, so if the argument is that we should avoid
controversies, shouldn't voting on every single issue be done by secret
ballot, with one black cube (or three) being sufficient to defeat any motion
(such as spending $10,000 of the lodge's money, for example)?

Thanks for all temperate and constructive comments on these subjects.

Fraternally, Paul



                             Selecting Candidates

#: 70231 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    31-Dec-94  16:19:45
Sb: #69258-Voting in lodges
Fm: Douglas BLACK 100543,3303
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

To take up your original theme, voting for candidates (petitioners in the
US?), the practice in UGLE Lodges is similar to that which you appear to be
outlining however the manner of rejecting a candidate in the various Lodges of
which I have personal knowledge is such that the <Black Ball> option is almost
never used.

If a Bro. knows anything detrimental to a candidate, he is duty bound to make
his objections known the the candidate's Proposer and Seconder (via the Master
or Secretary if direct communication would be embarrassing) at the time the
original proposition is read in Open Lodge or as soon as pratical thereafter.
The Candidates full details must be published in the meeting summons at which
the ballot is to take place so that any Bro. not at the original meeting also
has a chance to voice his objections in advance of the ballot being taken.

If these objections are of a serious nature; convictions, anti-social
behaviour, etc. the candidate should be given the option of withdrawing his
application. Should he refuse, it is up to the Proposer and Seconder to
consider whether they wish to continue with their sponsorship. In this way the
shock of a Black Ball on the day is averted.

In some Lodge By-Laws, the following sentence appears:

        Should there be any objection to the introduction of a candidate for
initiation, or a Brother for joining, it is recommended         that such
objection be mentioned privately to the Master or Secretary, who may
communicate with the Proposer, and give         him the opportunity of
withdrawing his candidate.

The number of Black Balls required varies from Lodge to Lodge the maximum and
default being three, the minimum one. This is also in the By-Laws of the
Lodge.

S&F
Doug Black

PS:- SYSOP - Yes I am a new boy! At least to the Forum<BG>. I have posted a CV
in the New Members Section.


#: 70299 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    01-Jan-95  06:30:06
Sb: #70231-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Douglas BLACK 100543,3303

Thanks for your information about the procedures you have witnessed, which
appear to be much better than what I have seen in operation here.  Can I just
ask a few questions for clarification?

Would the candidate be informed of allegations against him?  I have heard of
instances here where a candidate was voted down because someone in the lodge
thought he was, for example, John Doe when he was actually James Doe.  John
had a bad reputation, but not James, yet James was blackballed in a case of
mistaken identity.

What would happen if allegations mentioned in private were substantial in the
view of the person making them, but not in the view of the Proposer, Seconder,
and even the Master?  What if it appeared to the Master, for example, that the
allegations were a cover story for what was really something such as racial
prejudice?  How would that be handled, particularly in a lodge where 1 black
ball could reject, and the person making the improper allegations could get
his way despite the Master and others feeling he was acting improperly and
unmasonically?

Thanks again for helping to present some alternatives that might be steps in
the right direction.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 70425 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    02-Jan-95  05:07:45
Sb: #70299-Voting in lodges
Fm: Douglas BLACK 100543,3303
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Thanks for your queries. I'll try to answer them.

The candidate should be taken aside by his Proposer and Seconder and the
allegations investigated, particularly if the alleged incidents occured before
they knew him. In most cases however both should have known him for some time
and would have a fairly good idea as to the truth.

With regard to your second question, this could present a problem. I do know
of one case where a candidate was black-balled not because of wrong doing on
his part but because of the animosity of one Bro. due to a domestic dispute.
This candidate, now a Bro., re-applied to join to a different Lodge after the
year which must elapse under the Constiutions of UGLE. The reasons for the
original rejection were fully investigated by this second Lodge, the truth was
discovered and he was admitted. In this case the objecting Bro. deliberately
kept quiet about his feelings which was somewhat less than fraternal, but I
stress that this is an exception.

The full selection procedure in UK follows roughly the following path:

        1.      Cand. makes his interest known and Proposer and Seconder talk
to him about his interest
        2.      Cand., Proposer and Seconder complete application form which
requires details of ALL convictions to be               disclosed and a
statement from both Proposer and Seconder that Cand's answers are true and
that they consider              him suitable.
        3.      If Cand. lives and works outside area where the Lodge meets,
Sec. makes formal enquiry to the Local Provincial               GL as to his
suitability.
        4.      Proposal read in Open Lodge
        5.      Cand. interviewed by the Lodge Committee (PM's WM, SW, JW,
Treas, Sec, + 2 Elected MM's). Proposer and             Seconder are also in
attendance.
        6.      Lodge Committee makes a recommendation as to suitability to
the full Lodge
        7.      Sec. reads details of Cand. in Open Lodge and reports
Committee's findings. WM reads a declaration to the effect              that
Cand. is "In opinion of the Lodge Committee" suitable and signs the
application form in Open Lodge.
        8.      Ballot followed by Initiation.

Thus there are a number of points before the ballot at which a Cand. could be
rejected.

Hope these comments help

S&F
Doug Black, Sudbury #4529 EC


#: 70436 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    02-Jan-95  08:18:39
Sb: #70425-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Douglas BLACK 100543,3303

Bro. Doug,

Your answers are helpful, and enlightening.  The procedures in English lodges
are very, very different from those in U.S. lodges, or at least the ones I
have seen.  Here a petition is read in lodge and the brethren know nothing
about the person except what they hear read (which is just information about
where the person lives and has lives, where he works and has worked, etc.). If
one or both of the vouchers are not members of that lodge (which is permitted)
the Lodge Secretary sends letters to find out if the vouchers are Masons in
good standing in their states.  At the same time, a lodge investigating
committee is supposed to meet with the candidate and also, I believe, look
into his moral background, but I do not know if this is actually done.  Then,
a month later the petition is re-read in the lodge.  If the vouchers are
present they say a few words of support.  If not, no problem.  The lodge then
proceed to vote through the use of the secret ballot box.  If no one casts a
black cube, the person is declared elected to receive the degrees of Masonry,
and is often initiated within a week or two.

With all respect for your procedures, it seems to me that they (and the French
ones Mike described) go on too long and could leave a new Mason with a feeling
that he was delayed too much and overly investigated.  Americans are not too
pleased with being looked into that much.  On the other hand, our procedures
are probably too cursory.  Perhaps there is some acceptable middle ground.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 70345 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    01-Jan-95  16:07:22
Sb: #70231-Voting in lodges
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Bro. Paul,

>>>I have heard of instances here where a candidate was voted down because
someone in the lodge thought he was, for example, John Doe when he was
actually James Doe.<<<

Good point. Something very similar happened to me once, when I was WM in
another Lodge (yes, I know... PM lingo...). But because of the method we use
for handling applications and for voting, the problem could be corrected in
time. Some months ago, I described the way applications are handled at my
Grand Lodge and practically by all Grand Lodges in France. Maybe I should
repeat it here briefly, since very many Brethren have joined the Forum since.
I will also do it more in detail.

 1. Candidate asks a Master Mason how to become a Mason.

 2. The Brother asks another Brother to second him, gives the candidate an
application form and asks him to supply, in addition: four passport pictures
of himself, a detailed, personal autobiography and proof that he has no
criminal record. The documents are given to the WM of the Lodge.

 3. The WM meets the candidate at the candidate's home, has a long
conversation with him, meets his wife and ascertains she has nothing against
his becoming a Mason. The WM then talks things over with the two presenters
and decides whether to submit the application to the Lodge. If ok,

 4. The WM submits the application to the Lodge. The passport pictures are
circulated and the autobiography is read. The MM-s discuss the application and
vote a first time. A ballot that is 75% positive suffices. If ok,

 5. The WM asks for the authorization of the Grand Secretary to proceed. The
GS staff verifies whether the candidate isn't a member of another Grand Lodge
or hasn't been expelled from another Grand Lodge. His picture, name and
profession are posted for a month on special bulletin boards so any Brethren
who know him and may  object have the time to do it. Any false statement in
the candidate's declaration results in a refusal of the application.

 6. In the meantime, the WM names three "investigators" among the MM-s of the
Lodge. One has to meet the candidate at his home, another in a public place
and the third at his workplace, if possible. The members of the Lodge do not
know who the investigators are.

 7. Each of the three investigators writes a detailed report about the
candidate and hands it to the WM. These reports are read in Lodge by the WM,
the Secretary and the Orator (Chaplain). The MM-s of the Lodge vote a second
time. A ballot that is 75% positive suffices. If ok,

 8. The candidate is invited to a future Lodge meeting. He is blindfolded,
introduced in Lodge and seated on a chair in front od the Altar. The MM-s
interrogate him for about 20 minutes. The questions are detailed, and some are
designed to destabilize the candidate so as to ascertain his self-control.
Then he is led out of the Lodge, his blindfold removed and he is sent home.

 9. Any MM of the Lodge who has a problem about the candidate speaks up. Then
a third and final vote is taken. If positive (75% suffices again) the
candidate is considered accepted, and he is sent a letter informing him about
the result and indicating the date of his initiation. If not, the Lodge can
either postpone the candidate for a year and run again through the whole
process, or refuse him.

This process takes between six months and a year. Any uncertainties,
allegations or problems about the candidate, be they expressed in Lodge or
privately to the WM, are cleared well in advance of the final vote, as in the
case when John Doe was confused with Jim Doe<BFG>.

Fraternally, Mike


#: 70377 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    01-Jan-95  18:23:01
Sb: #70345-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313 (X)

Bro. Mike,

I had not seen your description of how a candidate is considered in your lodge
before, and found it very interesting.

One question for clarification:  You said any MM who has a problem with the
candidate speaks up before the third and final vote is taken, and the vote
must be 75% favorable to approve.  What if nobody speaks against a candidate
but the vote still fails to achieve 75% favorable.  That happens here, except
that sometimes no one speaks against the candidate and then only 1 negative
vote is sufficient to reject.  Either way, it seems wrong to me that a brother
MM would not share with the brethren a reason that he felt was important
enough to reject a candidate.  If the reason were one that it would be best be
kept among the brethren, the person speaking should so state and trust the
brethren to do so.  (sorry my syntax seems to be off this evening, but I hope
you get the point)

Fraternally, Paul


#: 70427 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    02-Jan-95  06:10:45
Sb: #70377-Voting in lodges
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Bro. Paul,

>>>What if nobody speaks against a candidate but the vote still fails to
achieve 75% favorable.<<<

It hardly ever happens. in 23 years, I have personally never witnessed such an
occurence. Think of it: At the time of the three ballots and between them,
during six months to a year, everyone has multiple chances to express doubts
or reservations, as well as outright opposition.

The three ballots afford about the same total amount of filtering as one more
stringent ballot, but no single MM, or very small group of MM-s, can block the
acceptance of a candidate against the vast majority of the Lodge. In an
average French Lodge with 40 MM-s a cabal would have to gather more than 10
MM-s to succeed. Highly unlikely, and if this ever happened the Lodge itself
would badly need to take a hard look at itself.

And then why a cabal? We have no racial problems. Members of a French Lodge,
where attendance is normally high, know each other well and are on very
friendly terms. All matters are discussed quite openly.

>>>it seems wrong to me that a brother MM would not share with the brethren a
reason that he felt was important enough to reject a candidate.<<<

As you see, in our case it doesn't matter so much, so any single vote or even
multiple unannounced votes against a candidate is no cause for soul-searching
or crisis. We consider that any Brother is entitled to his own personal
reasons for voting against (or for!) a candidate, reasons that he does not
have to share with anyone.

Fraternally, Mike


#: 70437 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    02-Jan-95  08:18:41
Sb: #70427-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313

Bro. Mike,

This is the first time I can recall simply disagreeing (of course in a
friendly and brotherly way) with you.  Even though your procedures for
screening a candidate sound fine, and as you mentioned they work well in your
lodges, there are still some problems, in my opinion, (a) with attempting to
use them here, and (b) with fairness to the candidate and to all the brethren
in the lodge.

I have seen a couple of candidates rejected in lodge, one apparently for
racial reasons and one apparently because he owned a car dealership.  I am
sorry to say that even if it took more than 1 negative vote to reject, even if
it took 25%, both might have been rejected for what most of us I hope would
consider unmasonic reasons.  And since no one has to state those reasons, the
stain is on the whole lodge.

If we truly believe that we can trust our Masonic brothers with our secrets,
and that we have the greatest of respect for our brethren, then shouldn't any
brother who has a reason to keep a candidate out of the lodge consider it his
duty (and shouldn't the lodge require it) to tell his brethren about it rather
than secretly vote against?  For one thing it gives the other brethren a
chance to explain what might be a mistake.  For another, it gives the brethren
a chance to try to correct an unmasonic way of thinking -- whether it is
prejudice against all men of a certain race or all car dealers.

I have heard it said, as you did, that since candidates are seldom rejected
this is not something we have to worry about too much.  That's basically true,
but it still hurts to see injustices done some times, especially if they can
be corrected by injecting more, rather than less, what I would consider
Masonic conduct into the procedures.

Just thoughts for discussion, and I trust you understand that all I am saying
is with the utmost respect for your and others' opinions.

Fraternally, Paul

P.S.:  Your comment about there being no racial problem in France, or Europe,
as opposed to the U.S.   At the risk of stirring more controversy, is this
actually true?  We do read reports of both racial and ethnic problems in
Europe even now, let alone the past.  Isn't it possible that European lodges
reject candidates, or get the message out that candidates of a certain type
should not apply, based on who they are or to which families they were born?
This is not an attempt to cast stones, but just to try to find out if racial
or ethnic antagonism is a purely American product, why?  More importantly, how
can Freemasonry be a part of the solution to this problem rather than possibly
perpetuating it through the tyranny of the ballot box.


#: 70520 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    02-Jan-95  19:09:11
Sb: #70437-Voting in lodges
Fm: Ralph L. Hultquist (MN) 74107,3134
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Paul:

You certainly have the capacity/ability to generate interesting threads, in
fact so interesting, I just cannot keep from getting involved.<<BFG>> I hope
that this is what this forum is all about!

First, I'm not too sure someone with a history of fun, etc., like me, would be
able to gain admittance in France, so better stay where I am. <<another BG>>

But, if I may let me add another twist to this thread,  during my term as
Grand Master (1 year) it was my sad duty to expel six members and suspend one
more (when the suspension was lifted, his lodge would not take him back in) so
seven were "thrown out" of Masonry, all for felonies, required by our code,
and other Grand Masters in Minnesota have had similar actions to perform.
Some other U.S. jurisdictions have reported similar situations.

If our screening process had worked as it should have, it is possible we could
have caught these miscreants, at least some of them, before they were accepted
into Masonry.  While the procedure that Mike's lodge uses works well for them,
it would seem pretty severe in our lodges, where the emphasis is, "let's get
on with it!"

Commitment is a scarce commodity here.  To get lodge members to go out and
conscientiously investigate a petitioner (someone they do not EVEN know), is
often above and beyond their call.  Yet, the hue and cry is, "we need more
members!"  It seems our whole system needs an overhaul.

S & F,  Ralph


#: 70563 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    03-Jan-95  07:38:00
Sb: #70520-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Ralph L. Hultquist (MN) 74107,3134

Ralph,

I agree that the French and British systems of investigations probably would
not work well for us in the U.S., but they could possibly provide us with some
ideas for improvements.

It must have been very sad for you to preside over the expulsion of some
Masons, although clearly for proper reasons.  I have been told that in my
lodge a past master was expelled after being convicted of a crime (I wasn't
told if it was a misdemeanor or felony), and then after he served his time and
after a little more time for things to calm down, he was welcomed back and is
an active participant in the lodge.  Some were not pleased, but perhaps
Freemasonry has helped with the rehabilitation process as it should.

Isn't the whole procedure of Masonic jurisprudence a sort of hidden side of
Masonry.  Most of us do not know what types of actions would officially be
considered unmasonic (although different people might have strong views on
what should be), and most are not at all familiar with the procedures that are
used when a brother is accused of such conduct.  I have been told there are
good procedures to protect the rights of all.

To get back to the main point of this thread, it is just my opinion that the
procedures that are used in our lodges to vote on petitioners present too much
of an opening for abuses and unmasonic conduct.  I believe Allen Roberts said
that a long time ago and wonder why others did not agree and make changes
then.

Thanks very much for joining in this conversation about voting procedures.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 70959 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    05-Jan-95  08:11:07
Sb: #70520-Voting in lodges
Fm: Jacques Huyghebaert 100142,1234
To: Ralph L. Hultquist (MN) 74107,3134

Ralph,

>> While the procedure that Mike's lodge uses works well for them <<

My experience is that the procedure Mike was describing is the standard
procedure in the majority of the Masonic constitutions worldwide, the U.S.
perhaps excepted !!!

I wonder if an investigation of the effects of the American  "let's get on
with it!" system may perhaps not lead to an explanation of the results
American Masons are now so bitterly complaining about.

Frat
Jacques


#: 71232 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    06-Jan-95  18:22:40
Sb: #70959-Voting in lodges
Fm: Ralph L. Hultquist (MN) 74107,3134
To: Jacques Huyghebaert 100142,1234

Bro Jacques:

There is no doubt in my mind that our "American system" for balloting on
candidates needs help.  1) Candidates are poorly checked out at times, 2) one
negative ballot can deprive a very deserving candidates from Masonry, 3)
pressure on candidates for the wrong reasons, often to take further degrees,
and to become a shriner, for openers.  But change is difficult, no matter how
justified.

Society is ever changing.  Not too many years ago when a commitment was made,
you could depend on it.  Now, often times it is difficult to even get a
commitment, and depend on it, maybe not!

The Viet Nam war years left its mark with the anti-establishment people.  Our
society has become very materialistic, men and women demand "quality time"
when they go out for an evening.  Changes to be addressed.  This is just the
tip of the iceberg.  Perhaps answers will be forthcoming.

S&F,  Ralph

S & F,  Ralph


#: 70590 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    03-Jan-95  09:32:27
Sb: #70437-Voting in lodges
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Bro. Paul,

If we agreed on everything it would be extremely boring! You raise three
important points, and I will try to address them in turn.

=Screening and Voting Procedures=

It is clear to me too that our screening and voting procedures could not be
simply transplanted from one country to the other. There are differences of
history, culture, custom and attitude that cannot be glossed over. I am
certain nevertheless that something half way between our rather extreme rigor
and your easy-going manner, as Bro. Hultquist proposes in this thread, might
be a solution. I am more and more convinced by the information I get in this
Forum that you cannot possibly know enough about a candidate in the USA before
voting for or against him. This occasionally even causes felons to squeeze
through, and allows secondary considerations (skin color, selling cars) to
come to the forefront and obscure really important considerations. Speaking of
cultural differences, how can being a car dealer be such a negative point? It
sounds to me as if it were assimilated to drug- pushing and prostitution
<BFG>!

=Explaining Negative Votes=

Don't misunderstand me. I also basically think that, when someone has not said
anything about a candidate in the preliminary discussion and then casts a
negative ballot, he should be ready to explain his reasons. Preferably in open
Lodge but at least in private to the WM. I believe that, if we tout our
principles to be "brotherly love, relief and TRUTH", truthfulness is the least
we owe our Brethren. That I have no particularly strong feelings about such
situations is due to the simple fact that this kind of behavior has very
little chance to exist, and practically no effect whatsoever on the ultimate
result in our screening and voting procedures.

=Racial Problems in France=

>>>We do read reports of both racial and ethnic problems in Europe even now,
let alone the past.<<<

There is no place in the world completely free of racial problems or
attitudes, and the USA holds no monopoly of any kind. Every human being has
some reservation about some race, people or nationality. Some don't like
Blacks, some don't like Jews, some don't like Kurds, or Belgians, or
Canadians, or Swedes, or Mexicans, or Arabs; some even don't like the Swiss.
But the problem with this seemingly hard- to- avoid phenomenon is one of
intensity. Of taking or not action, violent or non- violent, on the dislike.
And from that point of view, the French are essentially non- racist.

The important matter is not to be completely devoid of petty dislikes. This is
unattainable. It is not to make them into guidelines for one's day- to- day
life. Slavery has been a limited and geographically remote (colonial)
phenomenon in France. Thus, there is no long- accumulated, deeply ingrained
bad blood. On the other hand France has always been a land of asylum. It has
received and integrated countless nationalities. Some better, some less well.
But, to answer your question,

>>>Isn't it possible that European lodges reject candidates, or get the
message out that candidates of a certain type should not apply, based on who
they are or to which families they were born?<<<

In 23 years af Masonry, I have NEVER seen (or heard about) in France of a
rejection based on a motive of class, racial or religious origin. Of course I
cannot speak for all of Europe. Particularly when I know that in some of the
otherwise most tolerant countries of Northern Europe there is a policy of "no
Jews or Moslems need apply". But the answer for France is an emphatic NO. My
own Lodge (45 members) has mostly Catholics, a couple of Protestants, some
Jews, two Moslems and a Buddhist, mostly whites, a couple of blacks, an arab
and an asian. We have a taxi driver, the CEO of a major company, and all kinds
in between. There never was any problem with integrating any of them.

Friendly and fraternally, Mike


#: 70601 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    03-Jan-95  09:47:46
Sb: #70377-Voting in lodges
Fm: Rudolf Kunzli,France 76314,434
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365

Bro. Paul,

>>>One question for clarification:  You said any MM who has a problem with the
candidate speaks up before the third and final vote is taken, and the vote
must be 75% favorable to approve.  What if nobody speaks against a candidate
but the vote still fails to achieve 75% favorable.<<<

In the Rectified Rite the votes are a little bit different. We in Besancon are
not using the ballot box. The votes are open, that means we are raising our
hand to vote. It is usual that a fraternal discussion about the candidate will
be before the voting. If a Brother has some doubts and he is alone with his
opinion he normally obstains from the vote. If there are enough reasons to not
accept a candidate, it's obvous that the voting would be negative. One
negative voice is enough in the Rectified Rite. That's the reason we are very
cautious and are trying to go over all facts in a extraordinary serious
manner.

Fraternally

Rudolf Kunzli, MPS, France

Treasurer, Lodge "Gnosis", Nr. 159, R.E.R., G.L.N.F., Besancon, France
Secretary, Lodge "Zur Freundschaft und Bestandigkeit", Nr. 4, Basle,
Switzerland
Lodge "Quatuor Coronati", Masonic Research Lodge Nr. 808, Bayreuth, Germany


#: 70722 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    03-Jan-95  23:00:41
Sb: #70601-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Rudolf Kunzli,France 76314,434 (X)

Bro. Rudolf,

Your procedure appears to be different from the U.S. and others mentioned here
already.  Just to be sure I understand you, is it correct that the negative
vote of one member of the lodge is sufficient to defeat the membership of a
new candidate, but that person casting the negative vote must do so openly in
lodge and must tell the brethren why?  Or can that person vote no without
giving a reason?

Thanks for your information.  It helps put our procedures in better
perspective.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 70746 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    04-Jan-95  07:13:11
Sb: #70722-Voting in lodges
Fm: Rudolf Kunzli,France 76314,434
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Bro. Paul,

>>>Your procedure appears to be different from the U.S. and others mentioned
here already.  Just to be sure I understand you, is it correct that the
negative vote of one member of the lodge is sufficient to defeat the
membership of a new candidate, but that person casting the negative vote must
do so openly in lodge and must tell the brethren why?  Or can that person vote
no without giving a reason?<<<

The Brother who will not negative, will have to reveal his reasons before the
voting will take place. As I mentioned already, there are several
"investigators" to meet the candidate before such votes will happen. We expect
serious interrogations and clear and honest reports & views of a candidate.
From my experience that is a very fair procedure and no space for intrigation
or somehting like that will left open.

Additionally I have to state that a town with a size of 2,500 people usually
doesn't have a Lodge in most countries in Europe. The cities with Lodges are
much bigger and the influence areas (?) larger. I'll find Lodges in Dijon
(600,000 people, 60km from me), Besancon (150,000 people, 30km from me) and
Beaune (22,000 people, 100km from me). They are the closest. It's not very
often that a public well known candidate will knock at our doors. So it's
rather rare that you will vote negative just because the candidate sold you a
lousy car or the beer in his bar is not what you like.

Fraternally

Rudolf Kunzli, MPS, France

Treasurer, Lodge "Gnosis", Nr. 159, R.E.R., G.L.N.F., Besancon, France
Secretary, Lodge "Zur Freundschaft und Bestandigkeit", Nr. 4, Basle,
Switzerland
Lodge "Quatuor Coronati", Masonic Research Lodge Nr. 808, Bayreuth, Germany


#: 70415 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    01-Jan-95  23:25:13
Sb: #70345-Voting in lodges
Fm: Charles H. Tupper 73614,2643
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313 (X)

   If my understanding of the workings of the interrogation are correct, the
candidates belief in a Supreme being are addressed at this time, thus making
it so he does not have to reiterate this belief during the initiation.  Is
this correct?

                                Chuck


#: 70428 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    02-Jan-95  06:15:29
Sb: #70415-Voting in lodges
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: Charles H. Tupper 73614,2643

Bro. Chuck,

>>> If my understanding of the workings of the interrogation are correct, the
candidates belief in a Supreme being are addressed at this time, thus making
it so he does not have to reiterate this belief during the initiation. Is this
correct?<<<

Yes. The candidate is asked about his belief in a Supreme Being, whom we
actually call Creator Principle for historical reasons, by the three
investigators and when interrogated under the blindfold.

For Brethren who may wonder why Creator Principle is used in preference to
Supreme Being, this too is tied to the rather chaotic history of France during
the last two centuries, which Paul Bessel commented upon in a few recent
messages in another thread. Before the French Revolution, the term was
"Supreme Being". Then the Revolution attempted to do away with Catholicism in
particular and religion in general. An attempt was made to substitute first a
cult of Reason, then a cult of a Supreme Being actually equated with human
reason.

Therefore the term "Supreme Being", "Etre Supreme", acquired a rather
ambiguous, and sulfurous, meaning in everyone's mind. It was replaced at the
GLF with the roughly equivalent "Creator Principle", "Principe Createur".

Fraternally, Mike


                          Committees of Investigation

#: 70410 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    01-Jan-95  21:28:07
Sb: #70386-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Ralph L. Hultquist (MN) 74107,3134

Bro. Ralph,

As always, your points are very well taken.  (Did you have a calm time in the
Grand Line, considering your willingness to talk about what would be
considered radical changes?)

I wonder if it would be productive to ask for anyone who is reading this to
comment on the type of investigation that took place when each of us first
petitioned.  I was invited to the home of one of the investigators, who talked
to me for about 10 minutes about how much he felt I would enjoy being a Mason
and giving me directions how to find the best parking are near the lodge.  I
don't recall being asked any questions at all, and was somewhat relieved
because I wasn't sure if I was worthy to become a Mason.

Have you had a chance to read Mike Segall's description of how they handle
candidate investigations in his lodge?  It sounds more thorough, but I'm not
sure if I would personally support something that sounds so hard on the
candidate, and that could dampen his enthusiasm for his brethren-to-be.  I
don't think that procedure would work here.

Do you think that there is hope for a relatively small change, and one that
would support the dignity of the Master:  Requiring that anyone who knows
anything negative about a candidate must share that information with the
Master, if not all the brethren, or else a black ball (cube) is not to be
counted.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 70429 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    02-Jan-95  06:17:30
Sb: #70410-Voting in lodges
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Bro. Paul,

Pardon me for joining in here <BFG>, but you might want to know the average
reaction of the French candidate after initiation:

"I had initially thought that I was joining a kind of club, then realized,
because of the length of time it took and the thoroughness of the
investigation, that it was something far more serious I was getting into. I
understood that the organization I was joining was doing me a favor by
considering and investigating my application. It was not I doing it a favor by
joining. Belonging to it was a privilege".

This is lifted, unchanged, from one of the brief "impressions of initiation"
lectures that each new EA has to present to the Lodge during the following
meeting. Maybe our psychological make-ups are different on the two sides of
the Atlantic<BFG>, but the candidates' enthusiasm and admiration for their
Brethren- to- be is not damped by these difficulties, quite the contrary.

Fraternally, Mike


#: 70438 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    02-Jan-95  08:18:42
Sb: #70429-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313

Bro. Mike,

Good points, and some in the U.S. might feel the same way.  But I suspect more
would be turned off and not pursue it.  Now you and others might say that's
fine, and actually a plus for Masonry, and I might agree.  But I also wonder
if that's the way, at least here, to try to build a secure future for
Freemasonry.  Maybe it is.  I'm just not sure.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 70455 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    02-Jan-95  10:51:55
Sb: #70438-Voting in lodges
Fm: Allen E. Roberts (VA) 71154,1022
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365

Paul: Read "We Can Do it!" in *Key to Freemasonry's Growth* or get the STB of
the same name. We should be honest with petitioners. Freemasonry isn't for
everyone. (The antis will certainly agree with me on this one!!!) Best, Allen


#: 70505 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    02-Jan-95  16:47:40
Sb: #70455-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Allen E. Roberts (VA) 71154,1022 (X)

Thanks Allen.  I'll get a copy and read it as soon as I can.


#: 70950 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    05-Jan-95  08:09:11
Sb: #70429-Voting in lodges
Fm: Jacques Huyghebaert 100142,1234
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313

Mike,

>> the candidates' enthusiasm and admiration for their Brethren- to- be is not
damped by these difficulties, quite the contrary <<

Fully agreed, I'd just add that this would apply not only to your Lodge, nor
even to French Masonry only, but to most of the Masonic bodies worldwide: in
Europe, Asia, Africa and South America.

The remarkable "exception" here are the U.S. !

=> see my comments to Paul (same thread)

Frat
Jacques


#: 71059 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    05-Jan-95  15:53:56
Sb: #70950-Voting in lodges
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: Jacques Huyghebaert 100142,1234 (X)

Jacques,

>>>Fully agreed, I'd just add that this would apply not only to your Lodge,
nor even to French Masonry only, but to most of the Masonic bodies worldwide:
in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America.<<<

I'm glad you mentioned that. I know about Europe and Latin America, but had no
precise idea about Asia and Africa. Also, I didn't want to step on the toes of
any GL-s that might have imitated our American friends <VVBFG>!

Fraternally, Mike


#: 70480 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    02-Jan-95  13:41:59
Sb: #70410-Voting in lodges
Fm: Charles H. Tupper 73614,2643
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

   You had it easy.  Three crusty Past Masters showed up at my door and sat
down with steaming cups of coffee.  When the pot was empty and I was
emotionally drained from answering questions about my professional life, my
personal life, and my views on the world, they told me that I would hear from
the Lodge in about three or four months.  It was almost four months before I
heard that I had been accepted.

   The experience has not dampened my enthusiasm for this Fraternity.  (G)

                                Chuck


#: 70507 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    02-Jan-95  16:47:42
Sb: #70480-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Charles H. Tupper 73614,2643 (X)

Chuck,

It's interesting how different the investigating committees can be in
different states, or probably in different lodges in the same state, and
probably even at different times within the same lodge.

I'm still not sure of my feelings about what degree of investigation is best,
and how to do it the best way.  There are some merits in what we have read
about the English and French methods, but also some in our less intrusive
procedures.  One thing I feel sure of is that investigating committees should
do more about informing candidates about exactly what Freemasonry stands for,
its ideals, and possibly do more to see if candidates support the Masonic
ideals of equality of all mankind, support of democratic principles, complete
separation of church and state.

I'm just stating my opinions, and hope I am not offending anyone.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 70537 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    02-Jan-95  22:41:24
Sb: #70507-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul A. Smith 74262,1362
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Paul:

   The length of time Chuck was referring to as affected his petition was
caused by several factors (all good, by the way.) His petition was dated in
mid May and read in Lodge at the June Stated. Per Lodge byelaws, the Lodge was
dark during the months of July and August, so it was not until the September
meeting that a ballot was cast. So you can see that some times there are
longer delays. As an example, say a petition is received and read at the
January meeting, a committee is formed and meets with the candidate and
reports back to the Lodge at the February meeting at which time the ballot is
cast. The candidate can then receive the First Degree as soon after as the
Master decides. In this instance, only little more than a month has elapsed.

Fraternally,

Paul, Secretary
Thomas M. Reed #225


#: 70564 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    03-Jan-95  07:38:01
Sb: #70537-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Paul A. Smith 74262,1362

Paul,

I see your point, and the procedures in my lodge are similar.  The intent
seems to be to get the process over with as quickly as possible from the time
the man first asks for a petition until his initiation, and even beyond that.
This may be the result of concern over the drop in our membership statistics.

Just another thought as a result of reading comments here.  Do you think it
would be a good reform if the process included a formal program after a
petition was received of educating the candidate about the meaning of Masonry
as well as learning more about him.  Then there would be a greater likelihood
that he would become an active participant since he would know what he was
joining.  As I said, just a thought.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 70720 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    03-Jan-95  22:38:21
Sb: #70564-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul A. Smith 74262,1362
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

<<<Do you think it would be a good reform if the process included a formal
program after a petition was received of educating the candidate about the
meaning of Masonry as well as learning more about him.>>>

Paul: I feel that there is far too little education provided for a prospective
new member As Mike has noted in several of his communications, learning is the
main focus of the Lodges of his jurisdiction. And quite possibly by providing
a program where by a new initiate is able to learn more about this ancient and
honorable institution we can also learn more about that individual as well for
the betterment of all.

POTS

Paul


#: 70724 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    03-Jan-95  23:00:43
Sb: #70720-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Paul A. Smith 74262,1362

Bro. Paul,

I definitely agree.  If we talk about Masonry's ideals of, for example,
brotherhood of all people, and if a candidate responds with an off-color or
ethnic joke, that tells a lot.

Thanks for the important and useful information you have presented here.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 71363 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    07-Jan-95  18:49:26
Sb: #70720-Voting in lodges
Fm: Norman Lederman 73551,1275
To: Paul A. Smith 74262,1362 (X)

<<<Do you think it would be a good reform if the process included a formal
program after a petition was received of educating the candidate about the
meaning of Masonry as well as learning more about him>>>

In Indiana we have a booklet of 25 pages which is read to the candidate after
he is elected to membership and before he takes his EA degree.  It is called
Preliminary Instructions and Information To Candidates.  It contains basic
Masonic history, (England, America and Indiana).  He his then told about the
Lodge, how it is governed and what is expected of him. The third part contains
Qualifications of a Petitioner.


Fraternally,

Norm Lederman, Secretary - Monument Lodge No. 657 - Indianapolis, Indiana


#: 71576 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    08-Jan-95  22:41:30
Sb: #71363-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul A. Smith 74262,1362
To: Norman Lederman 73551,1275

<<<<In Indiana we have a booklet of 25 pages which is read to the candidate
after he is elected to membership and before he takes his EA degree.>>>>

Norman:   My Lodge (Thomas M. Reed 225 - Seattle) somewhat follows the same
program as yours. However the form of information provided differs in that we
present each candidate on his first entrance into the Lodge with a copy of
Allen Roberts "The Craft And Its Symbols." We encourage that he acquaint
himself with the wealth of information provided in this fine source which
Allen has provided.

S & F

Paul
Secretary - Thomas M. Reed #225
           Seattle


#: 70519 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    02-Jan-95  19:09:07
Sb: #70410-Voting in lodges
Fm: Ralph L. Hultquist (MN) 74107,3134
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Bro Paul:

Do I really sound that bad<<VBG>>  Actually, I had a good rapport with those I
interacted with as I went through the line (ten years).  One, ahead of me a
bit and I touched swords some, but strangely, we socialized more, played golf
together, etc. than with some others, but we kept the communication lines
open.

I had had some assignments such as chairman of the Long Range Planning
Committee that sparked an interest in change, along with meeting a consulting
sociologist, Brother Mason.  Along with that I had studied the trend in
membership for thirty years, and that really got my attention.  I just
couldn't understand why others were not equally "spooked."  I finally decided
they were too busy talking about "in their year" to be of any help.

Strangely, my thinking has changed considerably since coming on this forum.
The activities overseas, and in other U.S. jurisdictions have given my
thinking a big push.  I see Masonry as having been too acquiescent during the
past thirty to forty years to demands of a changing society.  Everything is
settled in the short space of an hour on television, immediate gratification.
"No pain, no gain" is passe.  Commitment is also a thing of the past in many
cases.

It would seem that some changes are in order, did you see my other post?  I
get so worked up over these things, that I must be careful.  An example:  I
attended a MM degree (not in my lodge) where the order was changed a bit from
the usual, and the hue and cry from the past went up.  Later, I attended
another MM degree, and the lectures were only talked about briefly, not given,
but this was no cause for any concern.

And the ballot box is most certainly a very important issue.  I'm sure that
answers will surface as these issues are discussed, and as more and more
concerned Brethren  come on line.  We're sure to have some good discussions in
Washington.

S & F,  Ralph


#: 70562 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    03-Jan-95  07:37:58
Sb: #70519-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Ralph L. Hultquist (MN) 74107,3134

Bro. Ralph,

I'm really looking forward to meeting you in DC.  The impression given to many
of us about those who get to the Grand Lines is that they just want to keep
things going as they have been.  I have been very luck to get to know a very
progressive PGM in Virginia, Don Robey, and reading your messages also shows
that the traditional way of viewing Grand officers may be incorrect. If that's
the case, are there other reasons why we sometimes hear about the
impossibility of bringing about good changes?

I have been working with a very astute brother in Maryland on researching the
statistics of Freemasonry from 1900 through the present, including not only
total membership figures but trends in raisings.  Interestingly, they show
different things at different periods.  For example, during the Depression the
number of men being raised in Lodges **increased**, after having fallen during
the prosperous 1920's.  We're trying to finish this project soon so it can be
helpful to possibly guide the leaders of Masonry in their planning.

Have I mentioned to you that it looks very good for me to be able to meet you
at the airport when you arrive in DC, but not to get you back when you are
leaving?  I'll see you then.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 70662 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    03-Jan-95  16:00:34
Sb: #70562-Voting in lodges
Fm: Ralph L. Hultquist (MN) 74107,3134
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Bro Paul:

>>> are there other reasons why we sometimes hear about the impossibility of
bringing about good changes?<<< I'm sure there are many reasons change is
difficult even under good circumstances.  It is not easy to convince the whole
assemblage at Grand Lodge of needed changes, especially if the opposition has
rallied its forces.  Sometimes the budget must be considered, other parts of
the code considered, etc.

I was thinking (again, could be dangerous) we have been on this thread for
well over a week, have considered other aspects of lodge administration
somewhat similar in previous threads for months, so even our thinking changes
slowly as we take the time to consider our bailiwick in relation to others.
Perhaps our defense mechanism goes into action, or we have to build a straw
man to knock down first. I'm not sure how it happens, but I think our own
backgrounds and past come into play as new theories are presented.  New
thoughts trigger others in ourselves and others.

What I'm trying to say, rather clumsily, is that even "high-powered" seminars
take days, weeks, even months to get their points across, but given enough
time, it does happen.  Change will come, hopefully it's what is best for all.

Thanks so much for the gracious offer to meet us at the airport.  Have we
decided that carrying a PHILALETHES magazine is the best way to recognize each
other?

S & F,  Ralph


#: 70723 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    03-Jan-95  23:00:42
Sb: #70662-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Ralph L. Hultquist (MN) 74107,3134 (X)

Bro. Ralph,

Yes, I think carrying a Philalethes magazine is the easiest way to recognize
each other.

Thanks as usual for your comments about changes.  I agree that change just for
the sake of making it is not called for, while keeping things the same for the
same reason is also not the best way to go.  You're probably correct that one
of the best engines for thinking about what changes are good, and bringing
them into action, is this computer board (and similar ones such as the one on
Prodigy).  As more and more brethren become involved in learning how English
lodges do things, and how French, Swiss, and others do, we will figure out
what can work best for us and more and more brethren will start to agree.
That's what makes these computer exchanges so important.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 71031 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    05-Jan-95  14:45:08
Sb: #70410-Voting in lodges
Fm: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Paul,
Interesting comment on your investigation.  I don't blame you for feeling like
you do.  I remember meeting with the Master, Wardens, and my sponsor (my
father) at a pre-application meeting.  After being talked with and asked
questions the Officers agreed to offer me a petition and I agreed to accept it
and fill it out.

The Investigating Committee came to my home and asked me all kinds of
questions as well as providing me information and developing the beginnings of
a Masonic friendship with me.

I have been part of many investigations and always go to meet with the
candidate and his family (if married).  The information that you were provided
is OK as part of the conversation (practical information is good) but not as a
sole part.

In Massachusetts we have a list of questions that are recommended to
investigators to ask of a candidate.
Scott

#: 71048 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    05-Jan-95  15:48:19
Sb: #70957-Voting in lodges
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: Jacques Huyghebaert 100142,1234 (X)

Jacques,

>>>Under the RGL of Belgium regulations, SIX weeks after publication,
circulation and reading of the name of a candidate in all the Lodges, the
Lodge may proceed - by default - unless due opposition has been made.<<<

Hmmm... I'm not sure I understand your message... Don't you check whether the
candidate hasn't been expelled from another GL, or whether he is not already a
member of another GL (whether you recognize it or not)?

Fraternally, Mike


#: 71607 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    09-Jan-95  06:25:33
Sb: #71048-Voting in lodges
Fm: Jacques Huyghebaert 100142,1234
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313 (X)

Mike,

>> Don't you check whether the candidate hasn't been expelled from another GL,
or whether he is not already a member of another GL (whether you recognize it
or not) ? <<

Candidates for initiation have to state if they have previously applied to
become Masons and are requested to specify details.

Candidates seeking affiliation have to produce a certificate of good standing
from their former lodge, so that takes care of Brethren having been expelled
or belonging to another Lodge or Grand Lodge.

In the places where the GL of England, the GL of Scotland and GL of Ireland
work with overlapping Masonic jurisdictions like India, Sri Lanka, Gambia or
Guyana to mention the places which are coming up just now, names of candidates
are circulated efficiently on a local level, but there is nothing like a
common clearing house or any other system that officially takes care of this.

Since it takes months before the examination of an applicant is over, by the
time the Lodge has to vote, the other local Lodges are generally well informed
about who has applied and all that needs to be known, will be known.

All of it is usually happening in total harmony and peace, simply because, I
know from my personal experience, that before a Brother will accept to sponsor
a candidate, he will generally have to know him well and make sure for himself
he is worthy to be initiated.

That is true in Georgetown, Banjul, Colombo, or New Delhi as much as it is in
Brussels or Paris.  Usually, by the time the vote takes place, if it gets to
that stage, the ballot has become a formality.


If brutal and sudden rejections of candidates were to happen in Lodges outside
the US, I fear the danger of the Lodge collapsing altogether under the impact
would be great.


Frat
Jacques


                          Proficiency and Education

#: 69507 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    27-Dec-94  13:57:18
Sb: #69259-Voting in lodges
Fm: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Interesting topic that I am sure will developp some good discussions Paul.  At
this moment I just want to let you know that in Massachusetts, the Master IS
the one to decide on the proficiency of the candidate.  We do not vote on it
in open Lodge, even if the candidate is tested in open Lodge (as I was after
my third).  Often candidates are proven in front of the Master and Wardens
with the Brother's coach and sponsor in attendance.

Happy New Year.
Scott


#: 69531 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    27-Dec-94  16:36:14
Sb: #69507-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014 (X)

Scott,

That sounds like a good idea, to let the Master decide when to have candidates
do their catechisms in Lodge and when privately, and to have the Master be the
one to decide if the proficiency is sufficient.  Certainly better, in my
opinion, than having time-consuming balloting that turns off brethren to
attending lodge meetings.

I think it would be more beneficial to all, and have suggested in to our
incoming Master, to ask each candidate to present in open Lodge a little bit
of Masonic philosophy or history that he has read about.  Guidance to be given
to good, basic Masonic books from which to obtain this information. And no
long dissertations required (as at Mike Segall's Lodge), but just a short talk
on some Masonic subject to help enlighten everyone a little.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 69628 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    28-Dec-94  08:44:38
Sb: #69531-Voting in lodges
Fm: Rudolf Kunzli,France 76314,434
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Bro. Paul,

>>>I think it would be more beneficial to all, and have suggested in to our
incoming Master, to ask each candidate to present in open Lodge a little bit
of Masonic philosophy or history that he has read about.  Guidance to be given
to good, basic Masonic books from which to obtain this information. And no
long dissertations required (as at Mike Segall's Lodge), but just a short talk
on some Masonic subject to help enlighten everyone a little.<<<

I agree with the first sentence. The long dissertations as in Mike Segall's
Lodge or in mine one in Switzerland are something different. This will be done
when the candidate will be Brother and will have to prepare for the next
degree. In Switzerland this is normally about 10 months after his initiation.
Under the rules of the Swiss Grand Lodge Alpina an EA can become FC after 1
year and a FC can become MM after another year. In both degrees such a
dissertation concerning the degree is required in my lodge.

Fraternally

Rudolf Kunzli, MPS, France

Treasurer, Lodge "Gnosis", Nr. 159, R.E.R., G.L.N.F., Besancon, France
Secretary, Lodge "Zur Freundschaft und Bestandigkeit", Nr. 4, Basle,
Switzerland
Lodge "Quatuor Coronati", Masonic Research Lodge Nr. 808, Bayreuth, Germany


#: 69693 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    28-Dec-94  16:21:38
Sb: #69628-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Rudolf Kunzli,France 76314,434 (X)

Bro. Rudolf,

I'm sorry if I was not clear enough in my message.  In no way was I attempting
to denigrate the type of presentations that I understand are given in lodges
such as yours and Mike's.  I think it would be great if we could achieve that
here.  The only reason I made the reference was to indicate that I was not
suggesting putting too great a burden on our candidates, who in the past were
not required to learn anything about Masonic philosophy and history.  So,
rather than require what I believe is done in your lodge, I thought it might
be a first step to just ask our candidates to do a minimal amount of reading
and talk about it for a few minutes in lodge.

I would very much like to learn more about the contents of the talks that
candidates give in your Lodges when they are advancing.  Do you publish their
work?  Do they present original research, and how are their topics selected?

If Mike is reading this too, please also accept my apology if it appeared I
was not being supportive of the requirements in your Lodge.

To get back to the topic of the thread, though, do your Lodges take votes on
whether the candidates' presentations have met your standards, and if so are
the votes secret or open with open discussion?

Fraternally, Paul


#: 69803 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    29-Dec-94  09:55:57
Sb: #69693-Voting in lodges
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Bro. Paul,

>>>If Mike is reading this too, please also accept my apology if it appeared I
was not being supportive of the requirements in your Lodge.<<<

Too late... I took a friendly bite out of the seat of your your pants already
in a preceding message<BFG>!

Two natural limitations on actual lecture length are obvious:

a) Listening to candidates for the next degree would take all year if more
than 15 minutes were allowed.
b) For normal MM-s lectures, the limit is set by the attention span of the
Brethren multiplied by the interest of the lecture and by the oratorical
qualities of the lecturer. We have found this to vary between 20 and 40
minutes. Very few speakers can keep a tight grip on their listeners for an
hour.

(BTW, have you heard Mickey Ander speak? Guess you have. Could listen to him
for hours).

Best wishes of health, happiness and prosperity for the New Year!

Fraternally, Mike


#: 69911 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    29-Dec-94  19:47:28
Sb: #69803-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313 (X)

Mike,

I think most EA's in our Lodge would be so terrified at having to talk in
Lodge, rather than repeat what they have memorized, so we wouldn't have to
worry about keeping their comments short.  Rather, we might have to work to
get more than a couple of sentences.  But, again, even that would be a
beginning.

Agreed about Mickey.  Not only is he a wonderful person, but his voice sounds
like a radio announcer's.  More importantly, he takes on important subjects
and presents well-researched facts in an interesting way.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 70029 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    30-Dec-94  10:39:15
Sb: #69911-Voting in lodges
Fm: John Ward Worlein 75601,12
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Dear Bro. Paul,

PMFBIH, but I have followed with interest you discussion regarding the
European (or French anyway) lodge practice of having candidates make
presentations on Masonic subjects as they proceed with their degree work.  In
Minnesota,  degree memory work for candidates has been reduced in recent years
and may be even more so, whether the reason for this is to make it easier for
potential canditates or to avoid "putting them on the spot" is unclear.

Until I was active in my lodge, my public speaking experience had consisted
mainly of delivering gun-at-head lectures on field craft, etc. to 250 mightily
bored Marine infantrymen.<BMG> < big marine grin>   It has been quite a few
years since I was a candidate, but I do remember how uncomfortable I was
delivering the degree work and open lodge statements  until I finally realized
that my brother Masons were for real.  These guys were really rooting for me
and supporting me at every turn.  After that realization, public speaking in
lodge was a lot less tense and in other arenas was also much easier.  The down
side to this is that some brothers are sooo comfortable that they ramble on
about subjects that would make the afore mentioned field craft lectures seem
stimulating.

My point is that new ( & old ) brothers could do a lot more to stimulate lodge
meetings (and themselves) by researching and educating, but to allow the new
candidate or brother to find out what kind of an audience he has before he is
forced to that committment.  My humble opinion and thank you for the
opportunity to share it.

Incidently, speaking of educational topics.  Even though I am rather new to
this forum, I gave a short informational talk on the CIS Masonic Forum at last
Blue Lodge, the response was tremendous.  I brought  along randomly printed
correspondence from the forum, which was circulated at coffee & fellowship,
and read with great interest.  Since then several Brothers have sat in my
study to observe and participate in the forum.  A healthy and happy 1995 to
you and all you love.

POTS
John Ward Worlein
Fidelity Lodge #39, Austin Minnesota


#: 70114 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    30-Dec-94  19:37:09
Sb: #70029-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: John Ward Worlein 75601,12 (X)

Bro. John,

Thanks for your message.  You are absolutely correct about what you say, and I
will probably change my thinking and suggestions as a result of your comments.
You are right that there are some people who look as if they are going to die
just standing with everyone watching them, while others cannot be stopped no
matter what.

Maybe we could simply ask that each candidate be required (perhaps that is too
strong a word, maybe strongly recommended) to participate in a small group
discussion of fellow EA's or FC's with the lodge education officer and maybe
others in the lodge who are interested, informally, to talk about some of the
basics of Masonic philosophy and education.  Enough to understand basics, with
specific information imparted.

Do you think that would have a better reception?  Thanks again for your help.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 70177 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    31-Dec-94  07:17:41
Sb: #70114-Voting in lodges
Fm: John Ward Worlein 75601,12
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365

Bro. Paul,

Thanks for the kind words.  As I understand it, the emphasis here is on
education through participation, and rightly so.  Getting these new Brothers
excited about their new affiliation and active in it is the key to lodge
renewal.  Too often they are raised, press-ganged into a lodge position (Jr or
Sr Deacon) and badgered by the York or Scottish Rite recruiters, before they
have had the opportunity to learn anything of the Craft.  Small wonder so many
lose interest.

Yes,  I like the idea of groups working with the LEO, this may appeal to other
MM who have been members for years but who also missed their education.  Then
as they gain proficiency and confidence, bring that information to open lodge
in a public speaking format.

Regarding public speaking again, I'm reminded of a "survey" I heard of:  When
asked whether they would rather deliver the eulogy at a funeral or be the one
being  eulogized, most people opted for being in the casket. <BG>

POTS
John
Fidelity #39, Austin MN


#: 70225 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    31-Dec-94  16:07:56
Sb: #70177-Voting in lodges
Fm: Ralph L. Hultquist (MN) 74107,3134
To: John Ward Worlein 75601,12 (X)

John:

Noticed your discussion with Paul concerning education and the shortened
memory work in Minnesota.  I think that was done in 1991 as a trade-off for
education.  Have you seen the questions each degree participant is "required"
to fill out and send in to the Grand Lodge office for grading, before taking
the next degree?

The trade-off sounded good and I was in favor of it, but again it didn't meet
with any great acceptance with the status quo.  So now we have just a
shortened, or cheapened memory work, without the education anyway, a lose-lose
situation.

Education in Masonry is probably the most important element there is, and the
reason for the degree, yet sadly, it doesn't fly.

Liked your public speaking example.

S & F, Ralph


#: 70278 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    31-Dec-94  22:44:46
Sb: #70225-Voting in lodges
Fm: Charles H. Tupper 73614,2643
To: Ralph L. Hultquist (MN) 74107,3134

   Unfortunately, it is not the candidates fault when a system fails.  It is
the fault of those responsible for carrying out that system.

   When we look around our Lodges today, we see many men who have spent years
coming to Lodge, doing nothing, and going home.  These men have neither the
knowledge to administer a program or the inclination.  This may sound like an
indictment and so it is.  It is also true.

   Until the existing Brethren are educated to the point where they would be
able to administer these tests, the tests should be off limits for their use.
Perhaps a test of those who are to do the testing would be in order.

   Try this on for an idea:

   No Lodge shall use the alternate proficiency test until at least ten Master
Masons within the Lodge have taken the test and passed it with a 100% accuracy
rating.  Any candidate being passed or raised by use of this testing method
shall have his test paper signed by three Master Masons who have affixed their
signatures to it upon their honor as Master Masons.

                                                Chuck


#: 70387 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    01-Jan-95  19:26:37
Sb: #70278-Voting in lodges
Fm: Ralph L. Hultquist (MN) 74107,3134
To: Charles H. Tupper 73614,2643 (X)

Chuck:

Thanks for reviewing my post.  Your suggestion that ten MMs in a lodge would
be required to pass the test with 100% correct answers before allowing it to
be used by candidates is interesting and intriguing.  It would be somewhat of
a bookkeeping problem, or at least secretaries might suggest that.  Shortening
memory work does cheapen a degree, yet, parroting words when someone pushes
your button does little for learning Masonry either.  Right back to the same
quandary, how do we promote Masonic education, starting with the initiation of
our candidates in Masonry.

Ralph


#: 70479 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    02-Jan-95  13:41:58
Sb: #70387-Voting in lodges
Fm: Charles H. Tupper 73614,2643
To: Ralph L. Hultquist (MN) 74107,3134 (X)

   The key to raising knowledgeable Master Masons is passing a resolution to
enable the Lodge to open and conduct business on the EA degree.  We, here in
Washington, have not yet passed a resolution to open on the EA degree but we
did pass one at the last Grand Lodge to conduct business on that degree.  I
think the signing of the by-laws and the opening on the degree are not far
away.

   If we can get our new Brothers into the Lodgeroom for the Stated
Communications immediately upon their entrance into the fraternity, the big
push to make Master Masons out of them so they will be able to attend Lodge
and contribute will have been defeated.  We can then concern ourselves with
teaching in the Lodgerooms and with giving these new Brothers those things
which the Fraternity has to offer.  There would be no hurry and we could teach
them both the words and the proficiency examinations.  This would, of course,
be much more difficult than it was for you or I when we joined but we would
have excellent, proud, enthused Master Masons when they attain that
distinction.

   In a society which believes in the lowest common denominator for the youth
and teaches that feeling good is more important than achievement, I think we
are falling into the trap.  Studies and common sense both show that one does
not "feel good" unless one accomplishes something or at least gives it his
best effort.  For us to make it "easy" for a man to become a Master Mason is
not doing him or the Fraternity any favors in the long run.

   In my Lodge, I will require the candidates to be there for every Stated
Communication.  I will open Lodge, call down and have them in before we post
the flag.  They will stay for the entire meeting and will retire with the
Stewards immediately prior to closing.  I think this will become the norm for
my Lodge even if the Grand Lodge does not pass the opening on the EA
resolution which will probably be before it this June.

   My experience with the younger men which are now joining my Lodge is that
they want to learn.  In fact they demand education at the meetings.  During
the next year I have called upon my senior officers, two past Masters, two of
our new brothers and myself to deliver papers of Masonic interest to the
Lodge.  This is much of the programming for the year.  I have assigned a
knowledgeable Past Master to assist the young in Masonry members with their
assignments.  The Senior officers will have to wing it on their own and I
always do anyway.  The Past Masters will talk about what they do and what
Masonry means to them.  One is the Secretary (Our own Paul Smith from this
forum) and the other does our Trestleboard.

   If this works and the Lodge continues to gain new members through this type
of programming as well as projects that we are coordinating in small groups
outside the Lodgeroom as they are purely political in nature and the meet with
the friends of Masons dinners we will have at local restaurants, I may have
just hit upon what we need.  We will see.

   I have the opportunity to put my plan into action and will begin next week.

   I will keep you posted as to the success or failure of the various facets
of the plan during the year.  I will send you the Trestleboard with the plan
for the year listed in it next month when it is published.

                                Chuck


#: 70585 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    03-Jan-95  09:25:28
Sb: #70479-Voting in lodges
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: Charles H. Tupper 73614,2643 (X)

Chuck,

You raise again a point that I tend to forget about Lodges in the USA. That is
working on the MM rather than the EA degree.

It is certain that a major element in the success of continental Masonry is
that we mostly work in the EA degree. Thus, EA-s can attend most Lodge
meetings right away and be part of the life of the Lodge from the very
beginning. With certain limitations: An EA can neither speak nor vote in tyled
Lodge, a FC can speak but not vote. Only a MM may both speak and vote.

For information, this is how we mostly work at the GLF:

We only have tyled meetings (you would call them Stated Communications I
guess). Each Lodge has about 22 each year. Of these one is dedicated to
interrogations under the blindfold, one to initiations, one to passings and
one to raisings. We initiate, pass or raise between 3 and 7 candidates at a
time in an average, 45- member Lodge. The other 18 meetings all have one or
two lectures of the type I often described. Of these meetings, two are opened
on the 2nd and two on the 3rd degree. The remaining 14 are opened - and
conduct business - on the EA degree.

Newly initiated EA-s may thus already attend 15 meetings yearly (14 plus the
initiation). FC-s may attend 18 (16 plus the initiation and the passing).

Your plan is quite remarkable in that it allows you to attain your stated
goals without changing anything to the rules. Congratulations, and best wishes
of success!

 Fraternally, Mike


#: 70654 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    03-Jan-95  15:58:14
Sb: #70479-Voting in lodges
Fm: Bill Siebert 70421,3064
To: Charles H. Tupper 73614,2643 (X)

        >>   In my Lodge, I will require the candidates to be there for
        every Stated Communication.  I will open Lodge, call down and have
        them in before we post the flag.  They will stay for the entire
        meeting and will retire with the Stewards immediately prior to
        closing.

Proof once again that the constitutionality of a law has nothing to do with
its wisdom.

I disagree that you can have EAs present in a lodge open on the MM degree even
if they hear no ritual.  How do you handle the ballot box?  Aren't your
members required to give the penal sign of a MM when addressing the East  --
 in full view of persons not entitled to see it?

-- Bill Siebert, Past Master, Gladwin #397, F&AM of Michigan


#: 70736 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    04-Jan-95  01:46:42
Sb: #70654-Voting in lodges
Fm: Charles H. Tupper 73614,2643
To: Bill Siebert 70421,3064

  Somehow I think you missed the "call down" part of my message.  Business
will be conducted on the EA degree after I call down to that degree.  Any work
for any higher degree will necessitate asking all Brethren below that degree
to retire while we conduct the business of that degree.

   In Washington there is no requirement to address the East by any signs.
The membership is only required to stand and to address all comments and
discussion to the East unless the WM authorizes anything else.

                                Chuck


#: 71186 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    06-Jan-95  12:20:12
Sb: #70736-Voting in lodges
Fm: Bill Siebert 70421,3064
To: Charles H. Tupper 73614,2643

Your procedure would still be illegal in Michigan:


"There shall be nothing done in a Lodge open on the Entered Apprentice Degree
or the Fellowcraft Degree except the work and lectures pertaining to that
degree."

-- Key 4-15, Section 5

"All general or special business shall be transacted in a Lodge open on the
Master Mason Degree of Masonry, and at a Regular Communication except [that a
memorial service shall on the EA degree]."

-- Key 4-15, Section 8

-- Bill, PM


#: 71029 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    05-Jan-95  14:45:02
Sb: #70479-Voting in lodges
Fm: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014
To: Charles H. Tupper 73614,2643 (X)

Chuck,
This sounds like an excellent plan and reinforces for me the kinds of things
that more of us would have done if something like this Forum was available 10
or 20 years ago.

I am really looking forward to progress reports on these efforts.  The Masons
who are now members, or who will be joining your Lodge, will certainly have a
terrific year.  Hopefully it will be the first of many and, some day, may be
the norm.

Scott


#: 71115 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    05-Jan-95  22:30:04
Sb: #71029-Voting in lodges
Fm: Charles H. Tupper 73614,2643
To: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014 (X)

  The jury is out deliberating on the success or failure of the effort.  I
will be able to say that I have given it my best shot at the end of 1995.
We'll see.  I will keep you updated as the year progresses.  I am actually
kicking the year off on the 14th with a four or five degree day.  I do not
know if one of our incoming EA's will be able to make it because of his work
schedule but I will be doing one two FC's and two MM's on that day.

  The proof of success will be measured by Lodge attendance and new petitions.
I am extremely hopeful.

                                Chuck

PS:  The expected resolutions for opening on the EA degree if the Lodge wishes
to and the resolution to have EA's sign the by-laws and pay dues are on the
docket for the June Grand Lodge session.


#: 70255 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    31-Dec-94  19:40:52
Sb: #70114-Voting in lodges
Fm: Allen E. Roberts (VA) 71154,1022
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Paul: What you are suggesting about group educational meetings is practiced in
MA -- between the degrees. If really practiced - it's a good practice! Allen


#: 70300 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    01-Jan-95  06:37:33
Sb: #70255-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Allen E. Roberts (VA) 71154,1022

Allen,

That's good to hear.  Maybe we can do the same thing in at least some lodges
in Virginia.  By the way, so far I've found that the topic that gets brethren
most excited and interested is Freemasonry in the Civil War.  That's
especially true since our lodge building is on the site of a Civil War fort.
Needless to say, House Undivided is our major source for information. Thanks.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 69643 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    28-Dec-94  11:50:55
Sb: #69531-Voting in lodges
Fm: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Paul,
I really like the idea you proposed to your WM.  One sideline note we should
take from what we have learned from Mike and others is that the offering must
be received in a totally Masonic manner.  If desired, discussion, and even
disagreements may occur, but not to in any way put down the presenter.

I know that you would not consider such a thing, but I can see someone making
a derisive snort or something and really pain or put off the new member.  So
it is sometimes better to admonish before any offense might occur.

Scott


#: 69694 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    28-Dec-94  16:21:39
Sb: #69643-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014 (X)

Scott,

You made a good point, and I agree that the Master should be totally
supportive of this concept and insure that everyone makes the candidate
comfortable -- even if he is totally wrong about what he says.  After all, he
might have read some false information.  Hopefully, there would be enough
brethren who have the knowledge and the tact to correct any incorrect
information and also help inform the candidate and all the brethren in
attendance.  (I am sorry to say that I believe most of the brethren would be
hearing almost anything about Masonic philosophy or history for the first
time, and would not know if it was correct or not.  But that's another reason
to start trying to correct this.)

In fact, one good topic could be the very one here -- the methods of Masonic
voting and how they came about, and their pro's and con's.

Fraternally, Paul

#: 69802 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    29-Dec-94  09:55:21
Sb: #69531-Voting in lodges
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Paul,

>>>each candidate to present in open Lodge a little bit of Masonic philosophy
or history that he has read about.  And no long dissertations required (as at
Mike Segall's Lodge), but just a short talk on some Masonic subject to help
enlighten everyone a little.<<<

Time limit on a lecture for passing to the next degree: 15 minutes.
Time limit on a normal lecture presented to the Lodge by a MM: 20 minutes (40
if he is known as an interesting speaker)<BFG>.

Health, happiness and prosperity for the coming year!

Fraternally, Mike


#: 69910 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    29-Dec-94  19:47:27
Sb: #69802-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313 (X)

Mike,

Hopefully some day we will be able to have brethren accept, and even demand,
interesting talks for 15, 20, or 40 minutes on Masonic topics that include
solid research and facts.  But first we have to take some smaller steps, and I
hope asking each candidate to read and talk about just one Masonic subject at
the time of his degree work in Lodge will help move us in the right direction.

To change the subject slightly, I decided that in order to try to understand
French Masonry a little better it would be helpful to learn more about French
history.  The more I read the more I understand why French Masonry developed
as it did, especially in the 1800's.  The anti-clericalism appears to have
been based on political considerations, and the later actions of the Grand
Orient are comprehensible, especially coming in the 1870's after what appears
to have been a tremendous upheaval (the Commune) that I believe is very little
known by Americans.

I know that theater is not the best place to learn history, but in Les
Miserables one of the central themes is a Paris revolt in 1832.  I have been
able to find information about political changes in 1830, but none in 1832.
Can you enlighten me a bit?

Thanks for helping educate an ignorant American.

Fraternally, Paul


                                Secret Ballots


#: 69825 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    29-Dec-94  11:02:15
Sb: #69694-Voting in lodges
Fm: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

I like that idea Paul.  Now, where is everyone else?  I would imagine this
topic would get more than a couple of people going.

Scott


#: 69912 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    29-Dec-94  19:47:29
Sb: #69825-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014 (X)

I agree Scott.  Do you think that the lack of comments indicates that everyone
agrees that we should immediately eliminate the secret ballot in our Lodges,
and have a all candidates automatically accepted unless a Lodge member states
a valid reason to vote against him in open Lodge, and then hold an open vote?
Bro. Allen Roberts would see another of his good ideas come to pass after all
these years (at least I think that is what Allen wanted to see come about when
he talked about the tyranny of the ballot box).

Paul


#: 70019 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    30-Dec-94  10:22:18
Sb: #69912-Voting in lodges
Fm: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Hi Paul.
Honestly,  I do not know why more of us have not chimed in on this topic, but
I do not think I would take that to me acquiesence to the position of no
ballots.  I think the ballot, when used correctly, is a good and proper device
and can contribute to the harmony of our fraternity.
Scott


#: 70102 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    30-Dec-94  19:03:20
Sb: #70019-Voting in lodges
Fm: Allen E. Roberts (VA) 71154,1022
To: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014

<< I think the ballot, when used correctly, is a good and proper device and
can contribute to the harmony of our fraternity.>>

I could agree with that, Scott, IF the ballot box was used MASONICALLY!! BUT
there are far, far too many instances when it isn't. Have fun, Allen


#: 71030 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    05-Jan-95  14:45:05
Sb: #70102-Voting in lodges
Fm: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014
To: Allen E. Roberts (VA) 71154,1022 (X)

Allen,
I understand your point.  But I somehow feel that we need to keep pushing the
education of our members and pushing for the ideal instead of throwing in the
towel and settling for something less than what we purport to be.

Of course, I have not seen more than one person rejected by ballot in the 14
years I have been a Mason.  If it was more of a problem in that time I might
feel a bit less idealistic about it.
Scott


#: 71089 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    05-Jan-95  18:56:59
Sb: #71030-Voting in lodges
Fm: Allen E. Roberts (VA) 71154,1022
To: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014 (X)

Only one rejection, Scott?!!! You're fortunate. There are some Lodges that
regularly reject petitions the first time around! Allen  


#: 71167 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    06-Jan-95  08:27:20
Sb: #71089-Voting in lodges
Fm: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014
To: Allen E. Roberts (VA) 71154,1022

I have gotten that impression.  Actually, we did have one ballot get to the
third go around during my second term (In MA the Master can call for up to
three ballots in case the black cube was a "mistake".)  I put that in quotes
because I think having the option available sometimes allows someone to throw
a cube for a commentary but withdraw it before the ballot is final.  As WM I
used the time between ballots to remind the Brethren of the proper procedures
for balloting as well as the proper procedures for handling concerns (which
should be relayed to the WM before the ballot is called for); and to also
remind them not only of the right, but responsibility of Masonic balloting
such that it is both a great right and privelage to vote for the good of
Masonry and a grave Masonic offense to spuriously cast a negative ballot for
unworthy motives.
Scott


#: 71057 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    05-Jan-95  15:53:25
Sb: #71031-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014 (X)

It certainly sounds as if the procedures that were used in my lodge when I
petitioned might be different from others (yours, Washington State's, maybe
others).  Maybe the U.S. procedures for screening candidates are all right,
with some exceptions.

By the way, I still have not noticed anyone taking the position that the
secret ballot should continue in lodges (the original reason for this message
thread).  Do you think that everyone on the Forum agrees that all lodges
should hold open votes (open among the brethren) on whether or not to accept a
petitioner, with the requirement that anyone voting no has to tell his
brethren the reasons?  Do you think it would be possible to get this procedure
changed in our lodges as being better for the lodge and all the brethren?

Fraternally, Paul


#: 71170 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    06-Jan-95  08:35:30
Sb: #71057-Voting in lodges
Fm: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Actually Paul, I am in favor of the ballot continuing.  I have told Allen in
another message in this thread about some of the tools we have in
Massachusetts for handling ballots.  I have been lucky in coming across none
in my Lodge that stood to final ballot and only saw one in all the years and
Lodges I have visited.

I guess another point why I favor this is that I know that every candidate in
Massachusetts Masonry is taught in our Lodges of Instruction (at the least)
about the rights, privelages, and responsibilities of the ballot, the right
procedure for raising concerns about a candidate, and the penalties for voting
falsely in contraindication of the good of Masonry.  I do not know what other
GLs do, but I would like to believe that we really do take good men and try to
help them be better.  This is one aspect of that.  By proper instruction,
indoctrination, education, and reinforcement, we can help our Brothers see the
wisdom of subduing their passions when it comes to casting a ballot on a
candidate.  Prejudice has no place in a Lodge.  Just because it has been
abused in so many places does not, to me, to say that it must be done away
with.  I would like to see some modifications, perhaps, that could help in
cases where fraudulent or mean spirited voting is occuring, but not do away
with the practice.

For everyone who feels pain, rightfully, at rejection (especially for no good
cause) think of the extra joy felt by the candidate who is accepted knowing
that every member of the Lodge who was present and voting voted for his
acceptance.  It wasn't a majority, it was unanimous.  That is the nice part of
this.

I recognize my idealism, but do not think that is such a bad quality to have
at times.
Scott


#: 71212 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    06-Jan-95  15:14:38
Sb: #71057-Voting in lodges
Fm: Bill Siebert 70421,3064
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

        >>Do you think that everyone on the Forum agrees that all lodges
        should hold open votes (open among the brethren) on whether or not
        to accept a petitioner, with the requirement that anyone voting no
        has to tell his brethren the reasons?

No, I don't, because *I* believe in secret ballots as a check on tyranny --
 the petty tyranny of organizational leadership being as bad as the
governmental tyranny sought to be prevented by our civil election methods.


#: 71219 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    06-Jan-95  16:09:02
Sb: #71212-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Bill Siebert 70421,3064

Bro. Bill,

I appreciate your comments and respect your views.  Could you help, though, as
I am not sure what you mean about using a secret ballot as a check on tyranny
in the context of votes in our lodges.  If a Master wanted the lodge to
approve a petitioner, and a brother did not want to do so, that brother could
block the petitioner in a secret ballot with a black cube or openly in lodge
by simply stating a reason why he was voting against.  I am guessing at your
reason, but perhaps you would say that some brethren might want to vote
against the wishes of the Master but would not want the Master to know that.
If that is the case (and I am just guessing at your reason) then wouldn't the
answer be that we say we must trust each other and act as brethren toward each
other, so brethren should be willing to tell their brethren their reasons for
voting against a petitioner and the Master should treat all brethren with
respect even if some disagree with him on some issues.

Thanks for writing your opinion here.  With all respect toward you and your
opinion,

Fraternally, Paul


#: 71648 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    09-Jan-95  12:15:44
Sb: #71219-Voting in lodges
Fm: Bill Siebert 70421,3064
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365

        >>wouldn't the answer be that we say we must trust each other and
        act as brethren toward each other

F.A. Hayek had a phrase for that concept:  the Fatal Conceit.  I would prefer
to believe that humans will be human rather than angels -- or as Groucho Marx
put it, I would not want to join a club that would have me as a member.

Bill, PM


#: 71682 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    09-Jan-95  16:51:14
Sb: #71648-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Bill Siebert 70421,3064

Bill,

Understood.  I guess I just expect more from Masonic brothers than from
general society.  I realize there are good and bad in everything, but hope
that we can have a far higher standard in Freemasonry than outside of it.

Again, thanks for sharing your opinions, and I guess we can agree that we
might not agree on all subjects.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 71606 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    09-Jan-95  06:25:16
Sb: #71057-Voting in lodges
Fm: Jacques Huyghebaert 100142,1234
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365

>> I still have not noticed anyone taking the position that the secret ballot
should continue in lodges <<

Paul, I had not noticed that that this was the original reason for your
message thread,

but - do count ME in among the defenders of the secret ballot.

Why ?

for the same reasons as in politics; or, in other words, because only a secret
ballot can guarantee our freedom.

Otherwise votes, elections, choices are just a farce.

In the former "democratic" countries of Eastern Europe and in China still
today the Communist Party "elects" his chairman by public standing
acclamation.

Who would dare to remain seated in such circumstances ?

In my humble opinion, when used Masonically, the ballot can contribute to the
harmony of our fraternity.

But from what  Bro. Allen Roberts writes I agree that the secret ballot can
also be the possible source of "tyranny".

According to me, the ballot itself is not the problem.  The problem is when
the intent of it is corrupted by evil minded members. That issue has to be
identified timely by the WM and the Brethren of the Lodge and must been dealt
with as an urgent and serious matter.

Supressing the secret ballot box, however, may end in supressing the ballot
altogether, which in turn would probably lead to unexpected and uncontrollable
consequences for our Lodges in particular, and Masonry in general.

I thought you might be interested to re-read this old message
================================================================
From: Jacques Huyghebaert, 100142,1234
To: Donald Sargent, 72703,1246
Topic: The Ballot Box
Msg #28213
Section: Collation & Chats [1]
Forum: Masonry+
Date: Mon 13 Dec 1993, 21:27:18

Prior to a formal vote in my Lodge in Brussels,  candidates for membership are
interviewed by an investigation committee, their report is read in Lodge and a
copy of each application is then sent to the Grand Lodge Secretary who will
circulate the names of all the candidates to the other Lodges, in order for
any Brother to make possible objections before the candidate can be initiated.
(Duration : usually several months)

Applications are reviewed several times, as the process goes on, and Lodge
members are expected to share their information, both positive and negative,
with their Brethren.

Rejection of candidates on grounds other than ritual are considered as
un-Masonic, in actual terms therefore, the Lodge members will make sure that
the candidate is a free man, under the tongue of good report and coming well
recommended, that he has signed the application acting of his own free will
and accord, that he is worthy and well qualified, of lawful age and properly
vouched for.  Physical deficiencies are taken into consideration with
generosity, but provided the man is not mentally deficient. Candidates are
required to produce a "clean" police report. (No court sentence, no jail)

If some negative information comes up, the Worshipful Master usually will have
a double check and report back to the Lodge.
If it appears that the candidate does not meet the requirements for admission
into our Order, the W.M. will discreetly approach the sponsor or sponsors and
suggest that he or they withdraw the application.

Basically, we should be cautious about whom we sponsor and we should
systematically avoid to propose anyone for initiation, whom we barely know.
In this manner, the frustration of a rejection and the disgrace of black balls
can easily be avoided.


===============================================================



Frat.
Jacques


#: 71627 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    09-Jan-95  09:38:05
Sb: #71178-Voting in lodges
Fm: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365

Hi Paul,
Benefits of the secret ballot in our discussion:
Well, if done properly I CAN see good reason (to me) for keeping the secret
ballot.  Harmony does play into it.  Say Brother A has reason that is
Masonically proper to vote against a petition of (some special relation) to
Brother X.  Brother X is a powerful person in the District.  For whatever
reasons, Brother A does not want to directly challenge Brother Y's candidate.
But he does know something that would Masonically disqualify the candidate for
membership.  So he goes to speak to the Master and the Master will have this
investigated and speak with Brother Y about the objection raised.  Either
everything will be resolved and the matter will be not as bad as Brother A
thought - so he will withdraw his objection and vote accordingly,  the
petition is withdrawn, or, if there is a valid concern and the petitioner does
not withdraw, then Brother A can cast a black cube in good concience that he
acted properly for the good of Masonry.

It is because of potential reasons like this one that I can support the secret
ballot box.
Scott


#: 71681 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    09-Jan-95  16:51:13
Sb: #71627-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014

Scott,

I understand and respect your opinion on this, and I guess we just differ --
respectfully.  I think there is far more danger of unmasonic actions and real
tyranny in the secret ballot on candidates than in an open vote.  Or if the
secret ballot continues, at least I think a brother should be required to
state a reason for voting negatively, at least to the Master.  Could we
possibly agree that the Master should have the right to state that if no
brother has stated a reason to vote negatively to the Master, in private, then
a black cube should not be counted?  Could this preserve the benefits of the
secret ballot and at the same time eliminate some of the tyranny of the ballot
box?

Fraternally, Paul


#: 71931 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    11-Jan-95  08:39:54
Sb: #71681-Voting in lodges
Fm: Jacques Huyghebaert 100142,1234
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365

Paul

>> Could we possibly agree that the Master should have the right to state that
if no brother has stated a reason to vote negatively to the Master, in
private, then a black cube should not be counted ? <<

Yes, 100%.

I saw it done for the first time in my mother Lodge in Libreville, Gabon, West
Africa.

Frat


#: 71953 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    11-Jan-95  11:14:11
Sb: #71681-Voting in lodges
Fm: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365

As has been stated in former messages by me, I definitely think a black cube
that is thrown that is a total surprise to the WM should be considered a
Masonic offense.  So we agree on your suggestion, even though I have a  more
idealistic view of the ballot and do not think we need to do away with it.
Scott


#: 71807 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    10-Jan-95  13:51:27
Sb: #71680-Voting in lodges
Fm: Van der Haeghen 71760,2665
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Brother Paul,

Following the thread about the secret ballot - I am not sure I agree with the
reasons I have been seeing in favor of a secret ballot.

I think one of the most straightforward to consider is that it is a buffer
against the divisiveness and acrimony that could come to a lodge if all things
were in the "clear".  If as an example, a candidate you proposed was rejected
by one of your Brethren for what ever reason, you might become a touch steamed
about it and it would probably be best if there was no known target for your
upset.

It seems to follow the general lines of reasoning used for not allowing
discussions of religion or politics in the lodge.

Frat
Rene Van der Haeghen


#: 71811 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    10-Jan-95  13:59:10
Sb: #71807-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Van der Haeghen 71760,2665

Rene,

That is the main point I have heard for the secret ballot, with no reasons
given.

How about this.  To keep what many see as the benefits of the secret ballot,
but to avoid what many see as the potential for unmasonic and unfair conduct
using it, would you agree that the secret ballot should be retained for voting
on petitioners, with one black cube sufficient for rejection, BUT that anyone
who intended to vote negatively would have to privately speak with the Master
of the Lodge to indicate their reason.  The Master would, on his honor, keep
the identity of the brother secret, but would state to the Lodge whether or
not he had heard a reasonable, Masonic reason for a negative vote. If not, the
ballot would be declared clear.

This way, unless we distrusted our Masters (and if we do, we are in worse
trouble than just over this subject) we could have the best of both ways with
balloting.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 72054 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    12-Jan-95  01:00:21
Sb: #71811-Voting in lodges
Fm: Nick Kirkland 100034,2451
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365

Paul,

PMFJIH, but I have been following this with interest, and would like to
suggest that if we trust our brothers then we need have no fear of them
abusing the mechanism.  That comment is given in support of the secret ballot,
but the most interesting point of this debate is that IMO most arguments in
favour of secret ballots can also be used in favour of open ballots, because
of the underlying *trust* we all have in our brothers. (IMO. this is the
difference that removes any valid parallel with civil votes where that
essential trust cannot be pre-supposed, and the fear from intimidation has to
be addressed.)

I would like to suggest a secret ballot allows us to recognise the difference
between the fully masonic ideal and the weaker human impulses that prevent
many of us from doing more than struggle to uphold the grand principles of
Freemasonry.

S & F

Nick
Windsor Castle Lodge #771
Province of Berkshire, England


#: 72204 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    13-Jan-95  08:16:40
Sb: #72054-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Nick Kirkland 100034,2451 (X)

Bro. Nick,

You have made some very good points, as have others who have commented on this
subject.

Could I ask you the same question as some others?  Would it be an acceptable
position, in your opinion, that if someone votes against a candidate in a
secret ballot in Lodge without having told the Master or the brethren why,
then the Master could say that is unmasonic and the candidate is approved?  I
know that even if all of us here agreed, that would not change anything, but
I'm just trying to see if we could have a consensus on this.

Thanks for your interesting comments.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 72205 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    13-Jan-95  08:45:01
Sb: #72204-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul J. Wolsko 72302,2771
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Paul,
        But what if _many_ black cubes were cast?



Paul


#: 72370 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    14-Jan-95  14:33:58
Sb: #72205-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Paul J. Wolsko 72302,2771 (X)

Paul,

My suggestion, and I would interested in whether you would agree, would be
that as long as any brother had given the Master a reason that the Master
considered valid (Masonic), then a rejection by any number of black cubes is
valid.  If the Master is not informed, in confidence if requested, of any
Masonic reason for a negative vote, then a negative vote should not be
considered Masonically valid.

Would that seem reasonable?

Fraternally, Paul


#: 72406 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    14-Jan-95  18:40:25
Sb: #72370-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul J. Wolsko 72302,2771
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Paul,
        The problem I have with this is that a vote does not need an
explanation to anyone at all.  Need you explain to someone why you did or
didn't vote for President Clinton in the last Presidential election?

        If we're going to do this, then we might as well enact a deal whereas

51% of white balls are clear, and forget the black cubes.  This kind-of flies
in the face of harmony in the lodge, no?

Fraternally,
        Paul


#: 72614 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    15-Jan-95  20:58:16
Sb: #72406-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Paul J. Wolsko 72302,2771 (X)

Paul,

It's just my opinion, but if we are to show that we really believe what we say
about Masonry, then different rules and practices should apply than in Lodge
than in our other activities.  Thus, there is a justification for the secret
ballot and many good reasons for allowing each citizen to keep to himself the
reasons for voting for Clinton, Bush, or anyone else in an election for
government officials.  This allows even for "wrong" or un- citizenly reasons
such as liking how a candidate parts his hair.

But Freemasonry is supposed to be different.  We say we believe in the
brotherhood of all men, and only vote against a candidate based on his moral
qualifications.  Therefore, shouldn't we say that no vote against a petitioner
can be valid unless a reason is given, possibly privately to the Master, but
at least that way, based on the morality of lack of it shown in the
candidate's character.  Otherwise, aren't we being hypocritical about what we
say Freemasonry stands for?

Please take this as simply an expression of opinion in a friendly discussion.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 72654 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    16-Jan-95  07:49:33
Sb: #72614-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul J. Wolsko 72302,2771
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Bro. Paul,

        No offense (or anything else) taken at your remarks. <g>  I guess I
just have a problem with explaining a vote, unless it were considered a
voluntary thing, which it probably is de facto anyway, as people will discuss
things.

        On the other hand, I have no first-hand experience with this, as I
cannot recall a vote having gone against a petitioner in our Lodge.  Matter of
fact, I believe it is standard practice that, if a black cube is found, a
second vote is immediately taken to insure that a bro didn't grab the wrong
one.


Fraternally,
        Paul


#: 72695 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    16-Jan-95  14:23:20
Sb: #72654-Voting in lodges
Fm: Thomas K. Lybarger 71712,3545
To: Paul J. Wolsko 72302,2771 (X)

Paul(s),

Sorry to jump in, but I also have a problem with the single no vote.  I think
it allows any one person to have too much room to display any opinions, views,
and prejudices.  We have had one candidate rejected in my 3 years as a Master
Mason, for reasons which I thought were unjustified, and found that I was not
the only person who thought so.

We did not discuss our votes, but the potential reasons for the candidate
being rejected, and agreed that a no vote had nothing to do with the
petitioner's qualifications.

Tom Lybarger


#: 72730 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    16-Jan-95  16:16:28
Sb: #72695-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul J. Wolsko 72302,2771
To: Thomas K. Lybarger 71712,3545 (X)

Thomas,
        Then what is a vote _for_?  An impression?  If a person is continually
rejected, might that say something?  One thing I will say, bro, is that
something was discussed somewhere - or there was a single bro who had a
reason to cast a black cube.  I must think about this further.


Fraternally,
        Paul
        Cincinnati #3, Morristown, New Jersey


#: 72838 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    17-Jan-95  10:00:43
Sb: #72654-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Paul J. Wolsko 72302,2771

Paul,

Sorry to say, I have seen several negative votes on petitioners in a short
time.  Once, unquestionably, because of his race.  Once, because he owned an
auto sales agency.  I believe there were others, but these stuck in my mind.

I just think it would be beneficial to say (this may be repetitious, so I'll
just say it once more) that if, at least the Master has not been told a
reasonable reason to vote against someone, any negative vote should be
declared unmasonic and void.  Maybe we can move towards and better, kinder
world eventually.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 72889 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    17-Jan-95  15:19:52
Sb: #72838-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul J. Wolsko 72302,2771
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365

Paul,
        If a vote is unMasonic and void, is the vote retaken?  If it is, what
happens if it is _still_ not clear?  WM passes the vote by decree?  I don't
know about this...  Have you considered that this puts the WM in a really
lousy position?

The best,
                   Paul


#: 72998 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    18-Jan-95  09:41:45
Sb: #72889-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Paul J. Wolsko 72302,2771

For better or worse, the Master knew that his position would involve some
tough decisions.  Seriously, I think if the Master announced that NO brother
had given any reasonable (Masonic) reason for voting against a petitioner, he
could (I believe his has this power) and should declare that the petitioner is
accepted.  Of course, he should clearly tell all the brethren ahead of time
that anyone with a good reason to vote against the petitioner should contact
the Master, and will be given confidentiality, ahead of time.

Again, this is just my opinion of the best way to preserve the good qualities
of the current system, while minimizing its negative potentialities.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 73046 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    18-Jan-95  16:12:30
Sb: #72998-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul J. Wolsko 72302,2771
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Paul,
        Then what's the point in having a vote at all, if the Master knows
that it will be clear?  And if it isn't, the Master simply declares it
"unMasonic"?   Further, if the Master agrees with the bro who would cast the
black cube, why go ahead with the vote, knowing full well that it would not be
clear?  That doesn't set well with me.  I'd say that it wouldn't set well with
any GL.

        Also, only my opinion.

Fraternally,
        Paul


#: 73095 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    18-Jan-95  20:15:50
Sb: #73046-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Paul J. Wolsko 72302,2771 (X)

I see your point.  But I guess I still cannot get past the point of not seeing
the value, considering the principles of Masonry, in the secret ballot where 1
vote without a reason can reject a candidate, and often does.

Thanks for your ideas and thoughts.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 72786 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    17-Jan-95  01:19:26
Sb: #72204-Voting in lodges
Fm: Nick Kirkland 100034,2451
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Bro. Paul,

>>Would it be an acceptable position, in your opinion, that if someone votes
against a candidate in a secret ballot in Lodge without having told the Master
or the brethren why, then the Master could say that is unmasonic and the
candidate is approved?<<

In an ideal world, a vote against a candidate, would >not< be out of the blue,
but I don't think it is necessarily unmasonic conduct if such an occasion did
arise.  What about an incident where a brother was aware of something that
precluded a candidate from being accepted into Freemasonry, which he knew in
confidence - such as a priest knowing through confession?  Is it necessary for
the priest to reveal himself as the source of that information? Is it
unmasonic conduct for a Master to call into question the honesty and fairness
of another brother who casts a vote against without prior discussion?

These thoughts are offered in the spirit of the debate so far, that is

Fraternally


Nick


#: 72841 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    17-Jan-95  10:19:53
Sb: #72786-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Nick Kirkland 100034,2451

Bro. Nick,

I understand and appreciate your comment and opinion on this.  And I realize
that the position I have taken is based on the need and fact of brotherly
trust among Masons, and that same argument can be used to support the opposite
position.  (If we trust our brethren, we should be willing to tell them why we
are voting as we do.  And if we trust our brethren, we should be willing to
let them vote as they wish in private.)

So, logically, I have to go to another point.  We are not yet at the ideal we
are seeking, so which system is most likely to preserve the best of
Freemasonry with he least likelihood of harm.  If we continue to have a secret
ballot and allow any negative vote to reject a candidate even if no one has
told anyone, even in confidence, of a reason to reject that candidate, that
preserves the "right" of each brother to reject anyone for any reason.  If
instead this could be changed (and I recognize this is mostly an academic
discussion because even if everyone here agreed on a need for change, that
would not bring about any real change in the real world), and it would be said
that anyone could still vote privately for rejection for any reason, and one
vote (or three where that is now the rule) could reject a candidate, but (and
this would be the only change I would now propose) at the very least at least
one brother must have informed the Master in advance of a reason that the 
Master agreed was reasonable for rejection.  With the proviso that if that
brother asks the Master for anonymity, the Master is honor bound to keep that
brother's identity secret.

I think this would preserve all the good things that some see in the secret
ballot system, while reducing or eliminating some of the negatives of that
system.

Hope you find this discussion interesting and friendly.

Fraternally, Paul


#: 73152 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    19-Jan-95  00:58:28
Sb: #72841-Voting in lodges
Fm: Nick Kirkland 100034,2451
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365

Paul,

Yet again you make some good points, which I find hard to counter<bg> but I
still feel a little uneasy with.  Let me summarize my understanding of your
position if I may:

1)  Trust is implicit between brothers.  This doesn't help us as any system
will be OK.

2)  We have to guard against not achieving a Masonic ideal.

3)  Secret ballot, plus discussion with WM is a suitable guard.

4)  Is point 3) the best guard?

Some additional thoughts for you:

A)  Failing to reach a Masonic ideal is not something that I believe is
divisible.  That is you are there or you are not - rather like pregnancy<bg>.
Perhaps this could spawn a whole discussion in its own right.

B)  If you are not there, point 1) above cannot be supposed.

C)  Discussion with WM alone >could< substitute for a ballot. An aside:  in my
Rotary Club when we have a candidate who we might >invite< to join us, the
secretary writes to all members stating a deadline for an objection to be
made.  If there are no objections then it is deemed to be accepted.  No formal
vote is taken.  My question here is - what is the purpose of the vote, if the
WM already knows the outcome?

D)  In a previous post I dismissed parallels with civil secret ballots.
However in circumstances where point B holds good - and I see comments made in
the thread and elsewhere about race, business or sexual orientation which I
take to mean Masonic ideals are not being attained in those cases, then
perhaps parallels can be sought. Maybe then we cannot trust a system where 1
dissenter carries the vote - should we discuss moving to a system of majority
verdicts?  I might like to assume that in that case a Bro would discuss and
attempt to persuade other Bros of his case, thus achieving some of the openess
we want.  Would this be at the expense of harmony and brotherly love?

In summary in my mind there are many many ways of looking at this situation in
a procedural way.  The ideal answer may not be found without concentrating on
working for Masonic ideals to be met in all Brothers so that Trust is fully
extended between us all and the procedure doesn't matter.

In the spirit of the debate,

Sincerely and Fraternally

Nick


#: 72799 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    17-Jan-95  04:54:05
Sb: #71811-Voting in lodges
Fm: Preston Burner [VA] 71055,1546
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365 (X)

Paul, I think your ldea about the Black ball has merit. IMHO, the thesis that
the confidental vote of ONE brother is important to maintain soliminity in the
lodge is less than true. I have personally seen the black cube cause GREAT
unrest among the brethren, and in all of the cases I have witnessed the
Brother (or Brothers) were known to the Brethren (One case you are very
familar with <VBG>) The Tyrany of the ballot MUST be considered by our Grand
Lodges and modified in some way.


#: 72842 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    17-Jan-95  10:19:55
Sb: #72799-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Preston Burner [VA] 71055,1546

Bro. Preston,

I agree, and just to let others reading this in on our private VBG, we both
witnessed a rejection that was undoubtedly based on the race of the
petitioner.  It was just about that same time that I read Allen Roberts' "The
Tyranny of the Ballot Box" and became convinced that some change was needed
and would be helpful to the Craft.

I recognize that others have not seen what you and I did, and some have never
witnessed a rejection of a candidate through the secret ballot box for
completely improper reasons.  That may explain some of the different
perspectives.

That's why I am now leaving aside some points about major changes, and just
testing the logic and reasonableness (possibly) of some minor changes that
might attract more support.  Leave the system as it is, but just require that
the Master be told, in private at least, by at least one brother of a
reasonable reason for rejection.  Even that, I suppose, would not have a great
chance of being adopted in our Grand Lodge, but I wonder if each individual
Master would have the authority to require it, or not, in his Lodge.

Good talking with you, and I'll probably see you at David's initiation on
Wednesday in DC.  (We may have more non-members of the Lodge there than
members.  Wonder what the Master will think.  He may think David is one of the
new crop of Senators or Congressmen to have such a following.)

Fraternally, Paul


#: 73750 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    22-Jan-95  17:57:57
Sb: #72842-Voting in lodges
Fm: Michael G. Wells 75714,2634
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365


>>Leave the system as it is, but just require that the Master be told, in
private at least, by at least one brother of a reasonable reason for
rejection.  Even that, I suppose, would not have a great chance of being
adopted in our Grand Lodge, but I wonder if each individual Master would have
the authority to require it, or not, in his Lodge.<<

I offer the following Code 332 form the Grand Lodge of Illinois.  "If any
member shall be proved to have been actuated by unworthy motives in the
exercise of his right as a voter, or shall willfully use the ballot to
interrupt the legitimate labors, or mar the peace and harmony of the lodge, or
shall expose the character of his own vote before, at the time of, or after
casting it, or shall attempt to ascertain the character of the vote of any
other member, he shall be liable to masonic discipline and punishment."

To answer your question, any attempt to determine the vote or motives of
another Mason would not be allowed in Illinois.  And the reason for the
acceptance or rejection of a candidate is upon the conscience of the brother
who cast the ballot, who also had been admonished to vote for the good of the
fraternity.  A "don't ask, don't tell" philosophy designed to protect the
secrecy of the ballot.

S&F
Mike Wells

ADGM, A F & A M, Illinois


#: 73975 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    24-Jan-95  08:47:48
Sb: #73750-Voting in lodges
Fm: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365
To: Michael G. Wells 75714,2634

Bro. Mike,

Interesting that Illinois is so specific on this.  I don't think Virginia is,
but I'm not sure.

It does seem that the current system of voting will remain as is.

Fraternally,

Paul


                                 Officer Lines

#: 71838 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    10-Jan-95  16:05:00
Sb: Voting in lodges
Fm: Douglas BLACK 100543,3303
To: Paul M. Bessel 71041,365

>>>should use the secret ballot to elect Lodge officers.  Is that how it works
in Europe?<<<

I can of course only speak for UK, but the system here is that Cands, The WM
and  Treasurer are elected by Ballot the first using ballot balls and the last
two by a paper ballot in open lodge. The tyler is also elected but by show of
hands. All other officers are appointed by the WM Elect.

Doug Black, Sudbury #4529 EC


#: 72003 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    11-Jan-95  16:37:13
Sb: #71838-Voting in lodges
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: Douglas BLACK 100543,3303

Paul and Doug,

Over here, the WM is first elected by a secret paper ballot. Then, the WM-
elect states his preferences for the other officers. The other officers are
then elected by secret paper ballot, and generally the WM- elect's
recommendations are followed.

To clarify, it should be known that the notion of "line" does not exist here
and that any MM may be elected to any position, including WM, with a lower
limit of at least three years as a MM for the WM, the two Wardens and the
Orator.

Fraternally, Mike


#: 72279 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    13-Jan-95  15:54:55
Sb: #72003-Voting in lodges
Fm: Douglas BLACK 100543,3303
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313 (X)

Mike & Paul

The UK system is somewhat similar to yours except that we have "Progressive"
offices (in ascending order IG, JD, SD, JW, SW, WM) and promotion is usually
but not always to the next office up. The most senior steward becomes IG . It
is possible to jump an office e.g. JD to JW, or Steward to JD. It is also
possible to "stay put" for a year. The WM however must have served for one
complete year as a warden, but even this can be worked round by dispension
from GL.

Doug Black, Sudbury #4529 EC


#: 72514 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    15-Jan-95  13:58:21
Sb: #72279-Voting in lodges
Fm: John Ross-Barnard (UK) 100141,3133
To: Douglas BLACK 100543,3303 (X)

Hi Douglas: PMFJIH but we also include in the progression - Assistant
Secretary and Secretary before JW. We are currently discussing whether the
tyler might also be progressive - either before JW or in the order WM, IPM,
ADC then tyler.
Fraternally John R-B


#: 72538 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    15-Jan-95  15:07:11
Sb: #72514-Voting in lodges
Fm: Julian Smith [UK] 100256,3300
To: John Ross-Barnard (UK) 100141,3133 (X)

Bro John,

Are you saying that brethren will serve as Asst Sec and Sec on their way East?
This implies that you change Sec every year.

S&F, Julian


#: 72731 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    16-Jan-95  16:28:27
Sb: #72538-Voting in lodges
Fm: John Ross-Barnard (UK) 100141,3133
To: Julian Smith [UK] 100256,3300 (X)

Hi Julian: yes that is correct we change secretary and asst secty annually. It
is a fast learning track for a "middle manager" mason and works well. You just
*have* to get it right or the lodge doesn't function. It kind of concentrates
the mind and instills masonic discipline.
POTS John R-B


#: 72793 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    17-Jan-95  02:15:55
Sb: #72731-Voting in lodges
Fm: Julian Smith [UK] 100256,3300
To: John Ross-Barnard (UK) 100141,3133

Bro John,

Wow! In Essex we receive a lot of encouragement to turn our officers over
fequently. It's been made quite clear that having served 30 years as Sec is no
longer anything to be proud of. But once a year is a bit extreme, I think we
would have problems if we tried that.

S&F,
Julian Smith PM
Southend-on-Sea Lodge #6484, UGLE, Essex Province
St Andrews Royal Arch Chapter #1817


#: 72915 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    17-Jan-95  17:40:24
Sb: #72793-Voting in lodges
Fm: Tom Walker,CGY,Can 74053,1620
To: Julian Smith [UK] 100256,3300

Julian

<< In Essex we receive a lot of encouragement to turn our officers over
fequently.>>

Until they are done ??? or to stop them from snoring ??  (BG)

Frat, Tom


#: 73333 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    19-Jan-95  23:18:11
Sb: #73195-Voting in lodges
Fm: Jorge Soto 72674,1743
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313 (X)

Mike:

<<Here we work the A&ASR, which doesn't provide for Past Masters or an IPM
office as such.>>

We have talked about this before. The A&ASR as practiced in France (don't know
if also in Belgium and other European countries) doesn't have that provison,
but in most of the Latin America countries where we got Masonry and the A&ASR
from France, there is such office. The Inmediate PM is called "Ex-Venerable
Maestro", is the only member of the Lodge Officer's list that is not elected
or appointed. By Constitution is automatically installed as such. He sits
inmediately to the left of the WM. He replaces the WM if this cannot attend a
meeting. Beside the Master, is the only one who can initiate, pass and raise
candidates. He legally acts as "public defender" (while the Orator is the
"prosecutor") in cases of masonic trials.  But his role as member of the
Officers group, is much more important as advisor. We use his experience in
the best way we can and no doubt it is worthwhile.

Now, we are talking about men who have been with the gavel for two yeras (term
for WMs in some countries), normally men of study and willing to continue
serving the Lodge in this capacity. Not those that pretend to direct the Lodge
for ever and keep talking about ...<<in my times...I...>>. If the inmediate PM
cannot be installed or perform his duties as such (travel, sickness, work,
etc..) the PM before him will automatically take over. No problems, no
discussions, no wonderings. It works. Fraternally,   Jorge.


#: 73613 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    22-Jan-95  02:00:02
Sb: #73333-Voting in lodges
Fm: John Day [AUS] 100236,2364
To: Jorge Soto 72674,1743

Jorge,

Like you, we do have a roll for the Immediate Past Master. He is seated on the
left of the WM and is expected to assist his succesor with whatever advice he
can. Traditionally several small charges in the ritual are reserved for him.
At the Installation he is invested with the words:

        Wor. Bro. ..... I invest you with the collar and jewel of immediate
past master,
        an office not in the power of the worshipful master to bestow, being
yours of
  right, having faithfully performed your duties in the Craft.

However, unlike the A&ASR way, we do have an ongoing roll for Past Masters.
This often prevents them from taking office in the 'line' again, as this is
seen to be for Master Masons only.

S&F John


#: 74268 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    25-Jan-95  20:28:40
Sb: #73613-Voting in lodges
Fm: Phil Carr 74503,2130
To: John Day [AUS] 100236,2364

John;

Like you, we in Canada  have a very similar role for the IPM.   He
participates in each degree by performing  the final charge (although this is
not universal in all jurisdictions in the Country).  Following this, he moves
to become Tyler and then DofC, although again, some move directly to DofC if
Tyler is a paid position.

Phil


#: 74302 S7/Blue Lodge Concerns
    26-Jan-95  07:02:17
Sb: #74268-Voting in lodges
Fm: Nelson King [PSoc] 71202,22
To: Phil Carr 74503,2130

Phil:

<<Like you, we in Canada  have a very similar role for the IPM.   He
participates in each degree by performing  the final charge (although this is
not universal in all jurisdictions in the Country).  Following this, he moves
to become Tyler and then DofC, although again, some move directly to DofC if
Tyler is a paid position.>>

Gee Phil I am in Canada and we don't operate this way. There are nine Grand
Lodges in Canada.
In our Lodge the Tyler is a very junior Officer, in the Officer Line.  I don't
know what jurisdiction you are in, but I would suggest that each Lodge Bylaws,
dictates the role of the Officers.  Our IPM very rarely does any ritual, his
one and only job is to help the Master, and is the only one allowed to prompt
the Master.

TOK


                                Masonic Trials

#: 71214 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    06-Jan-95  15:19:03
Sb: #71204-Voting in lodges
Fm: Bill Siebert 70421,3064
To: Charles H. Tupper 73614,2643 (X)

We did that -- a couple of years ago.  The logistics were not seen to be worth
it.  For instance, in what degree do you hold a Masonic trial?  If in the EA,
do candidates sit in judgment of a Past Master?  If in MM, shouldn't the
accused have a right to be present?

Bill, PM


#: 71228 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    06-Jan-95  17:39:14
Sb: #71214-Voting in lodges
Fm: Charles H. Tupper 73614,2643
To: Bill Siebert 70421,3064

  Once a man takes the EA degree he can be tried in any jurisdiction.  His
right to be present at trial and present his defense to the charge of
unmasonic conduct can not be abridged.  This means that the trial must be held
in the Lodge on the degree that the Mason is at that time.  If the Masonic
code prohibits holding a trial on any but the MM degree, the law is, IMO,
unmasonic.

  In the situation of a trial for any member of the Lodge, regulations can be
written to cover these contingencies.  My personal  view is that if we think a
man has the character to become a Mason, we initiate him and have him pay dues
and sign the by-laws of the Lodge, then he has as much right to sit in
judgement of any other Brother who is charged with UMC as any other Brother.
Just because a man is a Past Master of the Lodge should give him no special
privileged status.  When he finished his term as Master of the Lodge, he
stepped down to the level of the rest of the Lodge.  He is no different than
any other Mason in it.

  The basic rules for a Lodge held on the EA degree should be pretty much as
follows:  EA's may vote on Lodge expenditures and trials and participate in
the Lodge meetings.  Fellowcraft Mason's may vote on Lodge expenditures and
trials, serve as members of committees, and participate in the Lodge meetings.
MM's may vote on everything, be chairman of Lodge committees, hold Appointive
or Elective office in the Lodge and enjoy all the privileges of a Master
Mason.

  It is pretty simple actually.

                                Chuck


#: 71281 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    07-Jan-95  09:15:46
Sb: #71204-Voting in lodges
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: Charles H. Tupper 73614,2643 (X)

Chuck, you also might want to remember that working in the EA degree is common
throughout the world, in both recognized and unrecognized Grand Lodges, and
that it does work very well. No upheaval of any kind. Apparently the US custom
is an innovation due to the Morgan affair. We had a thread about that last
year.

Fraternally, Mike


#: 71316 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    07-Jan-95  12:37:40
Sb: #71281-Voting in lodges
Fm: Charles H. Tupper 73614,2643
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313

   The effect of the Morgan affair in this was actually too late to have had
any effect.  The actual effect that the change to business on the third degree
was to make it so the candidates in the united States no longer had the
opportunity to grow in Masonry prior to being passed and raised.  I think it
is time to get back to teaching our candidates Masonry before they are passed
and raised.

   Obviously, in order to do this, we need to have them as active members of
the Lodges.

   I well remember the conversations we had on this subject last year but it
is well worth repeating as some Grand Jurisdictions are now beginning to see
the light.  (G)

                                        Chuck


#: 71482 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    08-Jan-95  13:35:09
Sb: #71316-Voting in lodges
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: Charles H. Tupper 73614,2643

Chuck,

After last year's thread, I was under the impression that the origin of the
change from business on the first to business on the third was the Morgan
affair. Do you know what actually caused this, after all, momentuous decision?
A good knowledge of its real reasons could be useful to anyone wanting to
support arguments for its repeal.

Fraternally, Mike


#: 71564 S1/Masonic Miscellany
    08-Jan-95  21:12:42
Sb: #71482-Voting in lodges
Fm: Charles H. Tupper 73614,2643
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313 (X)

   The Morgan affair was the impetus of the move to open on the third degree.
The furor caused by the abduction and the subsequent attack upon the
Fraternity had, by 1843, pretty much run its course.  The anti-masonic party
had ceased to exist by 1840 and the Lodges had begun to recover.

   The Baltimore Convention was called to standardize the ritual in the United
States.  (Trestleboard of the Baltimore Convention).  This effort failed but
the residual fear caused by the enemies of the Fraternity seems to have been
the reason for the decisions to issue dues cards and open on the MM degree in
an unneeded attempt to keep cowans and eavesdroppers from entry into the
Lodges.

   IMO, the opening on the third was unneeded then and is not needed now.  It
is, however, difficult to get changed as we seem to have a bunch of elitists
who contend that they don't want any EA's in the Lodgeroom during stated
communications.  I have heard a hundred idiotic reasons for this and none of
them make sense.

                                        Chuck

