My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

GLoTX Resolutions

dfreybur

Premium Member
Interesting. Currently in Texas all members of that specific lodge must ballot, any member of a GLofTX may ballot.

To me this means someone with determination can go around visiting seeing to it that a specific man can't get degrees. Until or unless that gets abused I'm not sure it's a bad possibility.

But it also means someone with determination can go around visiting seeing to it that specific lodges can't accept candidates. If that's ever been abused it's definitely bad. But if I suspect that might have happened I'd object to any visitors during a ballot. Attending your own lodge is a landmark right; visiting is a privilege and it may be objected to by a member.
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
I'd object to any visitors during a ballot. Attending your own lodge is a landmark right; visiting is a privilege and it may be objected to by a member.
Totally incorrect. The ONLY time a GLoTX Brother may be excluded from any GLoTX Lodge is if he is laboring under Masonic charges. Otherwise, visiting other GLoTX Lodges IS a right. See Art. 383.
 

Ripcord22A

Site Benefactor
Totally incorrect. The ONLY time a GLoTX Brother may be excluded from any GLoTX Lodge is if he is laboring under Masonic charges. Otherwise, visiting other GLoTX Lodges IS a right. See Art. 383.

So a Master can’t exclude a GLoTX Brother from his(the masters) lodge if there is contention with a member of that lodge?
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
So a Master can’t exclude a GLoTX Brother from his(the masters) lodge if there is contention with a member of that lodge?
Not preemptively. If a Brother causes contention in a tiled Lodge & continues to do so after the WM orders him to stop, the WM may either have that Brother removed or close the Lodge, at his option.
 

Ripcord22A

Site Benefactor
Not preemptively. If a Brother causes contention in a tiled Lodge & continues to do so after the WM orders him to stop, the WM may either have that Brother removed or close the Lodge, at his option.

Hmmmm interesting. In NM and OR a Master can exclude any and all brothers who are not members.

As for the voting....in OR lodge members must vote District members may vote. NM ONLY lodge members can vote
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
The ONLY time a GLoTX Brother may be excluded from any GLoTX Lodge is if he is laboring under Masonic charges. Otherwise, visiting other GLoTX Lodges IS a right. See Art. 383.

Not a landmark, of course. But local jurisdiction bylaws are binding on every member lodge in the jurisdiction.

Has this ever been abused that you know of? I see at least one proposal this year that hints of it. The one about who votes.

Not a completely hypothetical example. - I could start attending some lodge that I'm not a member of and drop cubes on every candidate. If I'm not the only brother doing so that lodge starves. I knew of an Illinois lodge where one of their own members was starving his own lodge by dropping cubes on every candidate. He didn't admit to it and no one may ask so it was technically only a guess as to who was doing it, but he was rejected from visiting any other lodge in quite some distance. As he was a disaffected member he did not attend any district, area or GL events so it never came up how to exclude him from them.

Rules requiring more than one cube tend to be the reaction if this abuse ever happens, but such rules have their own set of problems.
 

chrmc

Registered User
Just got back and can report as follows.

Hold over resolution #4 - Passed.
Resolution #1 - Passed.
Resolution #2 - Withdrawn.
Resolution #3 - Withdrawn.
Resolution #4 - Failed.
Resolution #5 - Failed.
Resolution #6 - Passed.
Resolution #7 - Passed.
Resolution #8 - Passed.
Resolution #9 - Failed.
Resolution #10 - Passed.
Resolution #11 - Passed, but just barely. 1347 to 1345 votes.
Resolution #12 - Tabled.
Resolution #13 - Passed.
Resolution #14 - Passed.
Resolution #15 - Passed.
Resolution #16 - Passed.
Resolution #17 - Failed.
Resolution #18 - Passed.
Grand Master's recommendation #1 - Passed.
Grand Master's recommendation #2 - Amended, then Passed.

Brother Ken Curry was elected to the Grand South, and brother Jim Rumsey was elected to the Committee of Work.

Of other notable events can be mentioned that the GM fell head first when stepping down from the podium on Friday, and nearly got a concussion. The visitation with Prince Hall was made easier, and the need to go through the Grand Secretaries office was removed. Freedom lodge from Houston had their charter taken away for multiple account of Masonic irregularities, and the recognition of the Grand Lodge of Cuba was suspended.
 
Last edited:

Dontrell Stroman

Premium Member
Just got back and can report as follows.

Hold over resolution #4 - Passed.
Resolution #1 - Passed.
Resolution #2 - Withdrawn.
Resolution #3 - Withdrawn.
Resolution #4 - Failed.
Resolution #5 - Failed.
Resolution #6 - Passed.
Resolution #7 - Passed.
Resolution #8 - Passed.
Resolution #9 - Failed.
Resolution #10 - Passed.
Resolution #11 - Passed, but just barely. 1347 to 1345 votes.
Resolution #12 - Tabled.
Resolution #13 - Passed.
Resolution #14 - Passed.
Resolution #15 - Passed.
Resolution #16 - Passed.
Resolution #17 - Passed.
Resolution #18 - Passed.
Grand Master's recommendation #1 - Passed.
Grand Master's recommendation #2 - Passed.

Brother Ken Curry was elected to the Grand South, and brother Jim Rumsey was elected to the Committee of Work.

Of other notable events can be mentioned that the GM fell head first when stepping down from the podium on Friday, and nearly got a concussion. The visitation with Prince Hall was made easier, and the need to go through the Grand Secretaries office was removed. Freedom lodge from Houston had their charter taken away for multiple account of Masonic irregularities, and the recognition of the Grand Lodge of Cuba was suspended.
Why was recognition pulled from the GL of Cuba ?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app
 
Last edited:

chrmc

Registered User
My notes show that #17 failed. Also, GM's Recommendation #2 was amended to increase the fee from $20 to $50 and passed as amended.

You're right. It was late in the day, so my notes are likely off. That one did fail as you say. I've amended the original post
 

BroBill

Site Benefactor
Site Benefactor
My notes show that #17 failed. Also, GM's Recommendation #2 was amended to increase the fee from $20 to $50 and passed as amended.
I also show 17 as not adopted. BTW, it was good to meet you finally, even if it was only 6.5 seconds as I passed out of the auditorium! Perhaps other opportunities will present and we can actually chat!

Sent from my QTASUN1 using My Freemasonry mobile app
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
The visitation with Prince Hall was made easier, and the need to go through the Grand Secretaries office was removed.

Are we now at full and traditional recognition without restriction, or is there some sort of complexity remaining? I don't like having recognition compacts as that establishes second class citizenship running in both directions.
 

David Duke

Premium Member
Are we now at full and traditional recognition without restriction, or is there some sort of complexity remaining? I don't like having recognition compacts as that establishes second class citizenship running in both directions.

It is my understanding that we are as you say full and traditional recognition. Visitation procedures will be as if you are visiting say Oklahoma or Louisiana.
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
Are we now at full and traditional recognition without restriction, or is there some sort of complexity remaining?
AFAIK, the following from 2015 is still in effect- my resolution was intended to correct the part of this regarding degree work but was not adopted:

"Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas:
The implementation of the Treaty with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas continues to move forward in an orderly manner. Visitations of members between the two Grand Jurisdictions have been ongoing by following the visitation process outlined and effective May 1, 2015.

There have been recent questions regarding activities between members of Lodges under each Jurisdiction that Lodges, Officers, and Members should be aware. First, members of one Grand Jurisdiction cannot participate in the conferral of any Masonic degree as a member of the degree team in the other Grand Jurisdiction. This includes speaking and non-speaking parts and extends to giving the lectures or any other activity associated with the degree conferral.

Nothing prevents members from the other Grand Jurisdiction attending the degree and observing the conferral of the degree in the other Grand Jurisdiction subject to the visitor gaining approval of his visitation request.


Second, the use of Lodge Rooms and Anterooms are subject to the Statues of the Grand Lodge of Texas, specifically Arts. 224 and 225. Unless an organization is listed in these articles, it is not appropriate for those organizations to rent or use our Lodge rooms.

Therefore, it is not appropriate for our Lodges to allow Lodges operating under the Jurisdiction of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas to rent or use our Lodge Rooms or Anterooms nor our Lodges to request to rent or use their Lodge Rooms or Anterooms.

Third, members of either Grand Jurisdiction may attend open Lodge events and participate in open Lodge activities subject to the guidelines and Statutes of each Grand Lodge. For example, if the activity requires a dispensation to undertake an activity in the Grand Lodge of Texas and your Lodge wishes to participate in a similar activity with a Lodge under the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas, your Lodge must still obtain a dispensation from the Grand Lodge of Texas.

Finally, please remember that each Grand Lodge maintains its sovereignty over the Lodges and members of its Grand Jurisdiction. If we visit a Lodge in another Grand Jurisdiction, we are subject to the bylaws, rules, and regulations of that Grand Lodge as well as our home Grand Lodge. In addition, proper protocol must be observed at all times by communicating through the Grand Secretary of your Grand Lodge when your Lodge wishes to communicate with a Lodge in another Grand Jurisdiction."
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
AFAIK, the following from 2015 is still in effect- my resolution was intended to correct the part of this regarding degree work but was not adopted:

"Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas:
The implementation of the Treaty with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas continues to move forward in an orderly manner. Visitations of members between the two Grand Jurisdictions have been ongoing by following the visitation process outlined and effective May 1, 2015.

There have been recent questions regarding activities between members of Lodges under each Jurisdiction that Lodges, Officers, and Members should be aware. First, members of one Grand Jurisdiction cannot participate in the conferral of any Masonic degree as a member of the degree team in the other Grand Jurisdiction. This includes speaking and non-speaking parts and extends to giving the lectures or any other activity associated with the degree conferral.

This is a very sad vote outcome and I am grateful you put it forward. If someone knows our work, they know our work and that "should" be enough for visitors from recognized jurisdictions. I've known Brothers who lived close to a state border who visited a lot and knew both rituals.

The time I've seen the most visiting Brothers participate is at the actual raising. If Dad's here from another, I want him to be able to raise Son and as long as the ritual is close I'm okay with that.

Therefore, it is not appropriate for our Lodges to allow Lodges operating under the Jurisdiction of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas to rent or use our Lodge Rooms or Anterooms nor our Lodges to request to rent or use their Lodge Rooms or Anterooms.

My mother lodge in California has a tenant lodge chartered by the MWPHGLofCA so I am biased on this detail.

Finally, please remember that each Grand Lodge maintains its sovereignty over the Lodges and members of its Grand Jurisdiction. If we visit a Lodge in another Grand Jurisdiction, we are subject to the bylaws, rules, and regulations of that Grand Lodge as well as our home Grand Lodge. In addition, proper protocol must be observed at all times by communicating through the Grand Secretary of your Grand Lodge when your Lodge wishes to communicate with a Lodge in another Grand Jurisdiction."

Standard issue recognition commentary.

Okay, one topic down, two more to go. Some progress is better than no progress.
 
Top