Well, for one, I think the crack-down on information seems...strange. Members are not allowed to talk to each other about petitioners or share information, as I understand it. If one member has negative information about a petitioner, then, the way I understand it, they're allowed to vote against him, but that's it; they can't share that information with other members of the lodge. Likewise, the investigation commitee's reports are rather lacking in information. They're either favorable or unfavorable. I have to be honest, I wouldn't vote in any other election with so little information, not even school board or HOA elections. Why should I have to vote on whether to accept someone into my most trusted circle of friends with so little information?
You could argue that I have the opportunity to be on the investigating committee myself and ask my questions, but there are a couple problems with that. For one, it's not feasible for me to be on every investigating committee. Likewise, it's hard to really get to know someone during an interrogation session, or even over the course of a few meals at the lodge.
This is what would make more sense to me. For one, I think a petitioner should have to know at least two members of the lodge well in order to petition. Second, these two (or more) men should have the opportunity to address the lodge during the meeting the petition is read and the brethren should have the chance to ask these brothers questions about the petitioner to find areas that the investigating committee might want to check out or ask about during the investigation, so that the investigation is both more efficient and more meaningful, and also to get insights about the petitioner that might not be readily apparent. Then, investigative committees should, for one, give their report themselves, and, two, give a real report, letting the brethren know exactly what they found out that might be useful in making a voting decision. The brethren should also have the opportunity to ask them questions, as well. Then, finally, the candidate should be balloted on. This is one area where I think we do things right. I wouldn’t personally change any of our balloting procedures, although I do think the number of black balls or cubes required to reject should be up to the lodge to decide and specify in their by-laws. I also think that they should only reject the candidate from that lodge for a time, and not from every lodge.
My reasoning for all of this is based on my ideas of the lodge as a fraternity. I’ve read a lot and heard a lot from various brothers who like the current system because they feel it prevents one grouchy brother in a lodge from screwing a petitioner out of membership in said lodge because he had a grudge against him or he had a toothache that day or whatever. In my opinion, if peace and harmony are to truly prevail in a lodge and the spirit of fraternity be maintained, there has to be some freedom for brethren to reject candidates they’re simply not comfortable with, whether they have a good reason for their discomfort or not. That’s why I think rejection should only be rejection from that specific lodge and not from the fraternity as a whole. There ought to be a mechanism to say to a petitioner, you’re a great guy, but we think you’d be a better fit at a different lodge. In order to know if a candidate is a good fit or not, however, two things are necessary: A) someone at the lodge has to have more than a passing acquaintance with the petitioner, and B) people with information about the petitioner have to have a legal means of sharing it with their lesser-informed brethren in an open and accountable way.
I’m not saying my idea is perfect. Tweaking would be necessary to fit individual situations. For instance, in my part of Houston, lodges are a dime a dozen and I could have joined any of 10 lodges as easily as the one I did join. If the lodges in my area were to choose to reject with only one black ball, I don’t think that would be terribly burdensome on petitioners. However, in rural areas where lodges are more spaced out, you might have to go up to three black balls to reject in order to be fair to petitioners and ensure similar accessibility.
Anyway, since you asked, those are my ideas.