What's new
By:
Advanced search…
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!

10 Propositions for Texas Freemasonry

Bro. David F. Hill

Bro. David F. Hill

David F. Hill
Premium Member
This is true no matter the affiliation. The only difference is that with PHA in Texas there is not a time limit on how long a WM or GM can serve which is sometimes good and other times not so good.

Sent from my SM-G955U using My Freemasonry mobile app
 
Bill Lins

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
While I agree with a lot of Bro. Kennedy's suggestions, giving Grand Masters more than one-year terms is not one of them. I've been a Master Mason for 18 years. In that time, I've known a select few Grand Masters with whom I would have been comfortable in giving them longer terms. Sorry to say, I do not feel that most of them were worthy of more time. It is a shame that the members of the Grand Line cannot plan and agree upon programs that would last beyond any one GM's term. I firmly believe their egos demand that each of them have a "signature" program. This, to me, does the Craft a disservice. They SHOULD be able to put their personal desires aside & come up with a multi-year program to benefit and improve the Fraternity. That they haven't done so proves my point, IMHO.
 
Bro. David F. Hill

Bro. David F. Hill

David F. Hill
Premium Member
Maybe a solution for it is that the craft propose and vote on long term projects that they would like to see accomplished. One year is a very short time to get anything major accomplished and then you add in egos and competing agendas and you get paralysis. We say that we should put ego aside but in reality that is close to impossible.

This is just the rambling of a 60 year old dude from Ohio.

Sent from my SM-G955U using My Freemasonry mobile app
 
C

chrmc

Registered User
Bill Lins said:
While I agree with a lot of Bro. Kennedy's suggestions, giving Grand Masters more than one-year terms is not one of them. I've been a Master Mason for 18 years. In that time, I've known a select few Grand Masters with whom I would have been comfortable in giving them longer terms. Sorry to say, I do not feel that most of them were worthy of more time. It is a shame that the members of the Grand Line cannot plan and agree upon programs that would last beyond any one GM's term. I firmly believe their egos demand that each of them have a "signature" program. This, to me, does the Craft a disservice. They SHOULD be able to put their personal desires aside & come up with a multi-year program to benefit and improve the Fraternity. That they haven't done so proves my point, IMHO.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, but if you look at it within the context of longer periods it usually also mean that you'll have a greater group of men to choose from and have less "bad Masters." In the Nordic countries the usual case is that a WM is serving for 8 years and a GM until they hit retirement age.
Whilst it does mean that you can hit some periods where innovation is hard, it also gives an incredible stability to the Craft and an ability to really work with problems and challenges.
However it does require a general leadership group that is up to the challenge of leading.
 
JJones

JJones

Moderator
Bill Lins said:
While I agree with a lot of Bro. Kennedy's suggestions, giving Grand Masters more than one-year terms is not one of them. I've been a Master Mason for 18 years. In that time, I've known a select few Grand Masters with whom I would have been comfortable in giving them longer terms. Sorry to say, I do not feel that most of them were worthy of more time. It is a shame that the members of the Grand Line cannot plan and agree upon programs that would last beyond any one GM's term. I firmly believe their egos demand that each of them have a "signature" program. This, to me, does the Craft a disservice. They SHOULD be able to put their personal desires aside & come up with a multi-year program to benefit and improve the Fraternity. That they haven't done so proves my point, IMHO.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think much of what the author suggests would be considered 'best practice' in an ideal situation. There have been some good GMs and some...not so good GMs and it'd be unfortunate to end up a less than stellar GM for multiple terms.

It'd be different if the fraternity had any real say in the next GM but it seems to go to whoever has the time and money to stick around in the Grand Line long enough.
 
E

Elexir

Registered User
chrmc said:
I get what you're saying, but if you look at it within the context of longer periods it usually also mean that you'll have a greater group of men to choose from and have less "bad Masters." In the Nordic countries the usual case is that a WM is serving for 8 years and a GM until they hit retirement age.
Whilst it does mean that you can hit some periods where innovation is hard, it also gives an incredible stability to the Craft and an ability to really work with problems and challenges.
However it does require a general leadership group that is up to the challenge of leading.
Click to expand...

I was wondering if someone had brought this one up.
I think however using us as an example without adding a few details is a bit off.
Our WMs have much more power and responsibility wich is why we have deputys.
Our GL also work in a wierder way and only members of our GL are involved with the election (this means that only brothers that are R&K are involved with this.) The retirement age is (atleast in Sweden) 75 for all officers.
 
Bloke

Bloke

Premium Member
Bill Lins said:
While I agree with a lot of Bro. Kennedy's suggestions, giving Grand Masters more than one-year terms is not one of them. I've been a Master Mason for 18 years. In that time, I've known a select few Grand Masters with whom I would have been comfortable in giving them longer terms. Sorry to say, I do not feel that most of them were worthy of more time. It is a shame that the members of the Grand Line cannot plan and agree upon programs that would last beyond any one GM's term. I firmly believe their egos demand that each of them have a "signature" program. This, to me, does the Craft a disservice. They SHOULD be able to put their personal desires aside & come up with a multi-year program to benefit and improve the Fraternity. That they haven't done so proves my point, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Hi Bro Bill

The issue in the above is not the period, it's the quality of the GM. If you had an amazing GM who made the Craft a success, brought light, leadership, pride, integrity, harmony, profile, membership and financial success, wouldn't you want him to stay as long as possible as long as he continues to do those things ? Or is it just an honorary office where everyone gets a turn ? While you're not going to double the quality of GMs by halving the selections from the candidate pool you would expect to get more continuity and higher quality GMs if, over a ten year period you're selecting only 5 of the best candidates rather than 10.

We often taking about making WM a two year term. One year is not a long time to effect change and it's only just long enough for a lodge to enjoy a good master. This is multiplied with the office of GM. The trick is continuity of meaningful strategy.

We select for a two year period. We can extend for another year (been done once in my time because the GM had carriage of an important project which took that long to resolve). Two years is too long for a dud, but so it's 12 months, so the trick is choose wisely. We use a collegial system to select GMs not a popular vote, however that College is voted by popular vote... That's not perfect, but I'd be very slow to embrace 1 year terms of GMs. The only reservation for selecting for more than 2 years is dealing with (removing) a poor GM and the energy required to properly discharge the office... but a 12 month term seems almost tokenistic.
 
Last edited:
Bloke

Bloke

Premium Member
Elexir said:
I tried to make it simple.
But basicly all that are involved it has been involved with our GL have whats known as the R&K degree. (think of it as the mmbers of a Supreme council of AA(S)R). When it comes to choose a new GM they elect him amongst themself.
Click to expand...
Likewise, a panel consisting of RtWBro's and above who are elected by the members selects our DGM who will later become GM.
 
Bill Lins

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
Let me expound a bit further, to answer some of y'all's questions. I do like the idea of having programs voted upon by the members of the Grand Lodge. I think it would give us better-thought-out programs that would last over time. As to the length of a GM's term, part of the problem is the amount of power & authority we grant our GMs. Perhaps, in return for longer terms, we should take back some of the GM's powers. If we're going to allow a multi-year term, we need to have the ability to clip the wings of a GM who goes rogue.
 
Bloke

Bloke

Premium Member
Bill Lins said:
Let me expound a bit further, to answer some of y'all's questions. I do like the idea of having programs voted upon by the members of the Grand Lodge. I think it would give us better-thought-out programs that would last over time. As to the length of a GM's term, part of the problem is the amount of power & authority we grant our GMs. Perhaps, in return for longer terms, we should take back some of the GM's powers. If we're going to allow a multi-year term, we need to have the ability to clip the wings of a GM who goes rogue.
Click to expand...
Our GM has some controls, we've probably gone a by far. However an important element is a grievance procedure where the GM is removed from the grievance process
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top