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!

Removing a Member

RAY

Registered User
We as lodge members can't remove a member. However the lodge members can get the ball rolling in the right direction if it there is a situation. Many things can get expulsion such as murder,felony's ect but in these cases have to go through the courts first,the gavel has to drop in the guilty mode then much certified paper work from the courts has to be sent to GL then they in turn send expulsion notifications to the lodge to be read at a stated meeting. A lodge member who creates mayhem can be filed on and trial held by Masonic GL reps who can get a member expelled but not the Lodge. Many years ago lodges handled there own problems but not in today's world.
 

TexMass

Registered User
In MA, it's a ten step process to expell a Brother other than the waive of the GM's hand. It could take a few months.
 

Smokey613

Registered User
We simply have to many Lodges. Fewer lodges would put an end to this practice.

Interesting thought. I have heard this sentiment expressed before. Out of curiosity, what would you use as a criteria for closing / consolidating a lodge or lodges?
 

RAY

Registered User
Interesting thought. I have heard this sentiment expressed before. Out of curiosity, what would you use as a criteria for closing / consolidating a lodge or lodges?

Small membership and financial difficulty's due to membership or property tax which will be eliminated this year or lack of interest. Any of these could cause action to be taken.
 

Smokey613

Registered User
I understand the "normal" reasons for closing / consolidating a lodge. I guess what I was asking is, what guidelines he thought should be used for solving the "too many lodges" and why some people think we have too many lodges?
 

RAY

Registered User
I understand the "normal" reasons for closing / consolidating a lodge. I guess what I was asking is, what guidelines he thought should be used for solving the "too many lodges" and why some people think we have too many lodges?

OK I personally don't think we have to many but thats my opinion.
 

Gerald.Harris

Premium Member
Premium Member
That doesn't stop the member from spreading rumors. You may say that the Brother could be brought up on charges, but according to GL if you don't hear it from his mouth it is just hear say. We all know how a rumor can spread and break a lodge and their reputation. My feelings are why do the other Brothers have to suffer and get shorted because of a personal quarel between a Master and a member? Like, I said if it is substatiated he should have the power to do so. It should not be the first thing to happen. I think you give this power and a few members may straighten up after a while.

I am just going by some members I have seen that truely know how to work our system. Don't get me wrong also, I think GL should have final say and they should review all the cases this would happen in. I just hate that you have to file charges and have a member expelled when he may fit in fine at another Lodge.

Brother Josh, I am actually of the mind that if a brother is disruptive in lodge, and then goes out and starts rumors, then I don't want him sitting in any lodge in this State. If he was a good and true brother, he would have shut his mouth when the Master called him to order, and if he was not in the wrong, then use the legal system that has been established for many years to seek an end to the situation. Otherwise if he was wrong, then take a repremind from the Master and be done with it.
 

Gerald.Harris

Premium Member
Premium Member
I understand the "normal" reasons for closing / consolidating a lodge. I guess what I was asking is, what guidelines he thought should be used for solving the "too many lodges" and why some people think we have too many lodges?

My Brother, I am not so certain that we have too many lodges in Texas. I would challange anyone who thinks so to take about a two month vacation and drive this entire State. I believe that we may have too many lodges in certain areas, or perhaps more then the populous might support in a given area, but this is a giant State.Perhaps more lodges should consider Consolidation, this might be a much better solution then just closing lodges. I know that some lodges are in trouble due to geography or demographics. Perhaps they were once situated in a (nice )part of town, but now are located in a (not so Nice) part of town. This is a classic example of a lodge that needs to consolidate with another or several others for that matter.
 

TexMass

Registered User
I was told that MA GL had passed that no lodge in MA can exceed membership of 150. This helped create more lodges and kept members from being "lost" in the membership. It has worked pretty well. Also, as far as expelling a brother, I forgot to mention that two years ago the GL of MA passed a by law allowing a lodge to bring a Brother up for review within 12 months of his raising and expell him if he has not met masonic requirments. This can only be done if a Brother files for a review and the lodge votes in favor. This is only a paraphrase. I did not agree with it and voted against it but it passed overwhelmingly.
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
I'm not so sure I couldn't support a review process, especially if it has to be approved by the Brethren. Sometimes a Brother turns out to be a different guy than the investigating committee looked at. In the alternative, we could consider having some sort of probationary period.

I also like the idea of restricting the maximum size of Lodges. I've been told that UGLE does this also. Lodges need to be large enough to support themselves but small enough that the Brethren know each other well.
 
Last edited:

HKTidwell

Premium Member
In my opinion we have a probationary period, for some it is the minimum time between degrees and for others it is a year or longer. If we have a person/brother that is not suited for Masonry then we should sit them down and talk to them. If there is an issue, then the brethren have many different times to speak up. I've never seen a perfect turn in and everybody needs a Mentor. Yes both of those are ultimate steps but they are options.

There are a lot of steps to becoming a Master Mason.
1. Find a Mason
2. Get him to sign off
3. Have two others at lodge sign off
4. Have two more Recommendation
5. Interview
6. Vote
7. Belief
8. There is a part of the EA degree that when you hear it makes you wonder (I once needed a friend who had a cable to tow my truck)
9. Profiency EA
10. Profiency FC
11. Profiency MM

I started out in my head listing all the steps involved while writing this post, when I got to number 5 in my thought process, I decided to write it out. (Being my thought process, I have to draw pictures and make notes to stay on track. :D) If I was allowed to vote at Grand Lodge and a law was introduced establishing a probationary period I'd vote against it in a heart beat. Just my two cents, that and a few dollars might buy you a cup of coffee.


"Sometimes the best thing to do is to use the processes in place instead of creating more rules." - That thought came from my time at the Fire Department, seemed like everybody wanted more rules instead of using what was in place. Near the end of my tenure we had rules spelling out things down to the act of passing gas. Most were reactionary rules, because of situations, but if the officers had done their job in the first place none of the additional rules would have been needed or asked for. Goes back to putting the right people in place, and making good thoughtful decisions every time a decision/vote is required in my opinion.
 

Christopher

Registered User
"Sometimes the best thing to do is to use the processes in place instead of creating more rules."

I definitely agree with that. That's why I appreciate that the Texas legislature meets only once every two years.

I agree that it certainly seems that in the interest of propping up our declining numbers, a number of brethren are willing to accept petitioners while asking very few questions and doing little investigation. I recently voted on a petition for the first time since being raised. It was a horrible exercise in indecision. The sole information I got to vote on was the petitioner's name (I'd never met him, so this was useless), and a unanimous committee report of "favorable". How was I supposed to decide whether to welcome this man as a brother based on just that information? I'd never met him. I knew nothing about him. To be quite honest, this being my first time, I was shocked that that was all the information given to me. I thought surely there would be a report or something, a list of questions and answers, anything. But no, nothing of the sort was read.

So then I was stuck between the feeling that I really couldn't vote for a man I knew nothing about to become my brother, and the pressure put on me by the obvious expectation that no brother ever casts a black ball. I seriously doubt any brother in my lodge can recall the last time he cast a black ball, if he has ever done so.

How do you guys deal with this? Am I off my rocker for not feeling comfortable voting for a petition with no information? Has anyone cast a black ball recently? Like I say, I'm new to all the unspoken traditions in Masonry.

My resolution from all of this has been to make sure I'm on as many investigative committees as possible, because it seems if I want to feel like I know how to vote when it comes time, I'll have to get the information I need by being on the committee.

S&F,
Christopher
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
How do you guys deal with this? Am I off my rocker for not feeling comfortable voting for a petition with no information? Has anyone cast a black ball recently? Like I say, I'm new to all the unspoken traditions in Masonry.

Recently we had a candidate whose petition was not going to be approved. Rather than blackball him & possibly create an enemy of Masonry, a little birdie landed on his shoulder & advised him to withdraw his petition. Part of the problem is investigating committees that don't do their jobs. Part of it is that we can no longer (legally) check criminal records, etc., like was done back in the old days. Part of the problem is Brethren giving petitions to men who shouldn't get them in the first place.

Mistakes will be made and committees will be misled. That's why I proposed a probationary period- if we find that someone is unsuited to be a Mason, we would have a way of getting him out without having to file charges. If a man turns out to be unsuitable but has not committed a Masonic disiciplinary violation, currently we're stuck with him. I think we need a way to correct that.
 

vanderson78102

Registered User
It's much harder to remove a brother than it is to let someone in. The offense would have to have been very serious and in the end I believe it is up to the GL. The last one I heard of being expelled was because he was sent to prison. Reprimand and suspension are much more common.
 

JTM

"Just in case"
Premium Member
Recently we had a candidate whose petition was not going to be approved. Rather than blackball him & possibly create an enemy of Masonry, a little birdie landed on his shoulder & advised him to withdraw his petition. Part of the problem is investigating committees that don't do their jobs. Part of it is that we can no longer (legally) check criminal records, etc., like was done back in the old days. Part of the problem is Brethren giving petitions to men who shouldn't get them in the first place.

Mistakes will be made and committees will be misled. That's why I proposed a probationary period- if we find that someone is unsuited to be a Mason, we would have a way of getting him out without having to file charges. If a man turns out to be unsuitable but has not committed a Masonic disiciplinary violation, currently we're stuck with him. I think we need a way to correct that.
or just make it like we did at sul ross. delay the petition process by setting requirements before they get in. 3 stated meetings + 3 called meetings... they have to at least come hang out quite a bit before they get their petition
 

HKTidwell

Premium Member
Recently we had a candidate whose petition was not going to be approved. Rather than blackball him & possibly create an enemy of Masonry, a little birdie landed on his shoulder & advised him to withdraw his petition. Part of the problem is investigating committees that don't do their jobs. Part of it is that we can no longer (legally) check criminal records, etc., like was done back in the old days. Part of the problem is Brethren giving petitions to men who shouldn't get them in the first place.

Mistakes will be made and committees will be misled. That's why I proposed a probationary period- if we find that someone is unsuited to be a Mason, we would have a way of getting him out without having to file charges. If a man turns out to be unsuitable but has not committed a Masonic disciplinary violation, currently we're stuck with him. I think we need a way to correct that.

Why could we not change part of the requirements to force the petitioner to obtain a complete criminal history to submit with their petition. We require a copy of their birth certificate and if a person is willing to provide that then I would assume they would be willing to submit a criminal history to. Just an idea, not sure why it isn't a requirement, but this may have been discussed before.
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
Not a bad idea, but only part of the solution. There are those who, while not criminal, can become a resemblance to the south end of a northbound horse.
 
Top