GLoTX Resolutions

Discussion in 'Freemasonry In Texas' started by Blake Bowden, Jan 15, 2017.

  1. chrmc

    chrmc Registered User

    625
    255
    63
    The package came out today. Resolution 4 reads

    WHEREAS, it would be best that Masons from other Lodges, not being a member of the Lodge acting, should not be allowed to vote or ballot upon matters of said Lodge, so as not to influence the outcome on said matters, and therefore, guests and visiting Brethren, not members of said Lodge, should not be allowed to vote or ballot on any matters of said Lodge, including membership; and

    WHEREAS, in voting and balloting on Petitions and Applications, other than for the three degrees of Masonry, it should be clear that only members present of the Lodge acting shall be entitled to vote;

    THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Article 417 be deleted in its entirety and a new Article 417 be substituted to read as follows:
    Art. 417. (458). Who May Vote. In balloting on petitions for the three degrees, or any of them, only members who are in good standing of the Lodge acting are entitled to vote, and all members in good standing of said Lodge who are present must vote.
    In balloting or voting on petitions for affiliation; reinstatement; restoration; or applications for dimit; certificate of good standing; waiver of jurisdiction; certificate of dismissal; or voting on examinations for proficiency; or the business transactions of the
     
    dfreybur likes this.
  2. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,715
    2,127
    133
    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.
     
  3. Bill Lins

    Bill Lins Moderating Staff Staff Member

    4,229
    979
    183
    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.
     
    hfmm97 likes this.
  4. Ripcord22A

    Ripcord22A Site Benefactor

    3,305
    1,975
    183
    So a Master can’t exclude a GLoTX Brother from his(the masters) lodge if there is contention with a member of that lodge?
     
  5. Bill Lins

    Bill Lins Moderating Staff Staff Member

    4,229
    979
    183
    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.
     
  6. Ripcord22A

    Ripcord22A Site Benefactor

    3,305
    1,975
    183
    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
     
  7. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,715
    2,127
    133
    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.
     
  8. chrmc

    chrmc Registered User

    625
    255
    63
    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: Jan 21, 2018
  9. Travelling Man91

    Travelling Man91 Registered User

    977
    384
    63
    Why was recognition pulled from the GL of Cuba ?

    Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2018
  10. Bill Lins

    Bill Lins Moderating Staff Staff Member

    4,229
    979
    183
    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.
     
  11. Plustax

    Plustax Registered User

    235
    54
    28
  12. Bill Lins

    Bill Lins Moderating Staff Staff Member

    4,229
    979
    183
    It was reported that they had invaded the territory of the Grand Lodge of Florida & opened Lodges there, that they had promised to close said Lodges, and had failed to do so.
     
  13. Travelling Man91

    Travelling Man91 Registered User

    977
    384
    63
  14. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    2,512
    2,779
    183
    Bill Lins likes this.
  15. chrmc

    chrmc Registered User

    625
    255
    63
    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
     
    Bill Lins likes this.
  16. BroBill

    BroBill Site Benefactor Site Benefactor

    423
    110
    113
    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
     
    Bloke and Bill Lins like this.
  17. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,715
    2,127
    133
    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.
     
    Bro Mathews and Bloke like this.
  18. Bro. David F. Hill

    Bro. David F. Hill David F. Hill Premium Member

    201
    169
    63
    More information will probably be coming soon with guidelines but the change has come.

    Doug, I sent you a text message. Not sure if you got it.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using My Freemasonry mobile app
     
    Bro Mathews and Bloke like this.
  19. David Duke

    David Duke Premium Member

    183
    117
    63
    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.
     
    dfreybur and Bloke like this.
  20. Bill Lins

    Bill Lins Moderating Staff Staff Member

    4,229
    979
    183
    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."
     
    hfmm97, dfreybur and Bloke like this.

Share My Freemasonry