Benton
Premium Member
It is if the committee is so eager for new members that they don't thoroughly investigate a new candidate.
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!
3 Black Balls Vs 1 Black Ball
- Thread starter Tx4ever
- Start date
It is if the committee is so eager for new members that they don't thoroughly investigate a new candidate.
wwinger
Registered User
Worst possible way to select the investigating committee.
Recommenders believe the investigators will discover any problems. Investigators don't do their job properly because they figure the recommenders wouldn't have put their signatures on the petition if they did not think the petitioner would make a good Mason. Then we don't discuss the petitioner in the lodge before balloting on him.
Net result? People are admitted who have no business being Masons. Others who really should have been a Mason say, "Why would I want to be a part of that organization. Look who they have let in."
The WM of a lodge was calling members of an investigating committee to see if the lodge would be able to ballot on their candidate at an upcoming stated meeting. The investigator began to tell the WM the details of his findings. The WM interrupted the investigator and told him that at that time there was only one question he wanted an answer to, "Would you trust the candidate with your family." The response was, "No, but I wouldn't trust my family with half the Masons I know." (true story)
And we wonder why our membership is declining.
tom268
Registered User
I have problems in understanding your ways. There is so little trust, and so much organisational rules in your descriptions, that I almost think, you do not talk with each other on a personal matter. Is not any involves brother acting for the good of his lodge? Of course, there may be different opinions among investigating brothers on what is good for the lodge, there are hardliners and liberals, but why should they let in a man, not suitable for this group?
In my understanding, the WM is the moderating power between all opinions, so he has the last word on a candidate here. He can even lift black balls and declare them white, if he thinks they are not based on facts.
I never saw a negative ballot, in my 13 years as a mason, I saw one black ball. That's because all candidates, that get so far, are already proved, discussed and turned inside out. A man don't even get a petition, if he is not OK for the brothers. The brothers, all brothers, not only a committee, know, that they protect a dear property, and that we don't let in everyone.
Well, that is, as I know it from my lodge. I know, that this is not so in every lodge, that there are even black ballots to show the WM, where the real power in the lodge is. I cannot understand that. We are all working for a greater good, but all seem to fear, that officers and committee members act out of petty feelings.
To be cautious is a goal and a duty for all brothers. If a lodge can communicate its tennets (which are hopefully the tennets of freemasonry) to all brothers, as it should be, then there should be no such problems as mounting up rules and advices for active brothers, to prevent stupidity.
In my understanding, the WM is the moderating power between all opinions, so he has the last word on a candidate here. He can even lift black balls and declare them white, if he thinks they are not based on facts.
I never saw a negative ballot, in my 13 years as a mason, I saw one black ball. That's because all candidates, that get so far, are already proved, discussed and turned inside out. A man don't even get a petition, if he is not OK for the brothers. The brothers, all brothers, not only a committee, know, that they protect a dear property, and that we don't let in everyone.
Well, that is, as I know it from my lodge. I know, that this is not so in every lodge, that there are even black ballots to show the WM, where the real power in the lodge is. I cannot understand that. We are all working for a greater good, but all seem to fear, that officers and committee members act out of petty feelings.
To be cautious is a goal and a duty for all brothers. If a lodge can communicate its tennets (which are hopefully the tennets of freemasonry) to all brothers, as it should be, then there should be no such problems as mounting up rules and advices for active brothers, to prevent stupidity.
wwinger
Registered User
Not very surprising, Brother. The rules regarding this in Texas are not even understood by most Texas Masons. You can see in this thread alone that there are significantly divergent opinions on how this should be done, most offered by well-meaning brothers who think they have the best interests of Masonry in mind.
All too often we forget that when we admit a man to our fraternity, we are not just deciding that we are willing to sit in the lodge with him, we are declaring to every Mason in the world that this is a man they are now obligated to, and that they can expect him to live up to his obligations toward them.
The rules and practices regarding this most important duty as a Mason must emphasis quality of membership. We have not done ourselves or Masonry any favors by lowering the bar. Guard the West Gate. What comes through that gate is our future.
Timothy Fleischer
Registered User
Brothers,
It's a little ironic that the Fraternity that opened its door (West Gate) to you and to me should now be more guarded against whom we let in and whom we don't.
When we act in good conscience to protect our Fraternity, then it will be protected at each step of the process.
The process is broken down into the three-part passage from The Book of Law. "Ask.... Seek... Knock."
A potential candidate has to ask a Master Mason about the Fraternity. A Brother should be blunt in his answer: "Masonry is not for every man. We guard who we allow into the Fraternity. This is why we are Accepted." The potential candidate should be told that Masonry cannot make a bad man good, it can only make a good man better. He should be told, before he is ever given a petition, that he will be investigated into his character, reputation and standing.
If a Brother does not know a potential candidate, he should never have his name anywhere on the petition. If he knows him well, then he should be proud to sign his petition. There are five Master Mason's names on the petition, two of whom have to be members of the Lodge he wants to join.
Those five Brothers should be part of the investigation process.
The Investigating Committee has an important job to do, a most vital job in my opinion. I think it is important that they visit the petitioner in his home. GL Law, if I remember, says that the 3 should do face-to-face interviews: not over the phone, or via email or anything like that. In addition to the questions on the petition form, other questions such as "Why do want to be a Mason?" and "What will you contribute to make Masonry better?" and "How does your wife feel about this?" should be asked.
In addition to meeting the candidate, the IC members should also meet his wife and kids, if possible. They should also call the recommenders and talk about what kind of man they are recommending. Do they know him through work? Church? Old school mate? What do they know about him today, right now, that might help or hurt Masonry?
After visiting individually with the petitioner, the committee should then meet to mull their findings. Are there any glaring misgivings or differences in the answers given by the petitioner.... if so, these should be discussed by the committee before it gives its stamp of approval. If the Investigating Committee is NOT unanimous in its recommendation, this should be noted in the report.
Finally, if the committee is firm in its recommendation, then we as Brothers to those committee members, and as brothers to the FIVE others who recommended him, should gladly cast a white ball.
However, if we are not satisfied, and if we know of a good, solid reason (i.e. past crimes, etc.), then we should cast the black ball and even file a protest.
I know of no Mason who cast a black ball simply out of being an Old Fart. Maybe the Brothers in my lodge are just that much better than everyone else!!!! I'd like to think the Brothers in my home lodge are the best in the world. As would you, I imagine, about your brothers.
A great source of information is the little yellow booklet "Officers Manual," available from Grand Lodge.
Guarding the West Gate is not a new problem for Masonry.
It's a little ironic that the Fraternity that opened its door (West Gate) to you and to me should now be more guarded against whom we let in and whom we don't.
When we act in good conscience to protect our Fraternity, then it will be protected at each step of the process.
The process is broken down into the three-part passage from The Book of Law. "Ask.... Seek... Knock."
A potential candidate has to ask a Master Mason about the Fraternity. A Brother should be blunt in his answer: "Masonry is not for every man. We guard who we allow into the Fraternity. This is why we are Accepted." The potential candidate should be told that Masonry cannot make a bad man good, it can only make a good man better. He should be told, before he is ever given a petition, that he will be investigated into his character, reputation and standing.
If a Brother does not know a potential candidate, he should never have his name anywhere on the petition. If he knows him well, then he should be proud to sign his petition. There are five Master Mason's names on the petition, two of whom have to be members of the Lodge he wants to join.
Those five Brothers should be part of the investigation process.
The Investigating Committee has an important job to do, a most vital job in my opinion. I think it is important that they visit the petitioner in his home. GL Law, if I remember, says that the 3 should do face-to-face interviews: not over the phone, or via email or anything like that. In addition to the questions on the petition form, other questions such as "Why do want to be a Mason?" and "What will you contribute to make Masonry better?" and "How does your wife feel about this?" should be asked.
In addition to meeting the candidate, the IC members should also meet his wife and kids, if possible. They should also call the recommenders and talk about what kind of man they are recommending. Do they know him through work? Church? Old school mate? What do they know about him today, right now, that might help or hurt Masonry?
After visiting individually with the petitioner, the committee should then meet to mull their findings. Are there any glaring misgivings or differences in the answers given by the petitioner.... if so, these should be discussed by the committee before it gives its stamp of approval. If the Investigating Committee is NOT unanimous in its recommendation, this should be noted in the report.
Finally, if the committee is firm in its recommendation, then we as Brothers to those committee members, and as brothers to the FIVE others who recommended him, should gladly cast a white ball.
However, if we are not satisfied, and if we know of a good, solid reason (i.e. past crimes, etc.), then we should cast the black ball and even file a protest.
I know of no Mason who cast a black ball simply out of being an Old Fart. Maybe the Brothers in my lodge are just that much better than everyone else!!!! I'd like to think the Brothers in my home lodge are the best in the world. As would you, I imagine, about your brothers.
A great source of information is the little yellow booklet "Officers Manual," available from Grand Lodge.
Guarding the West Gate is not a new problem for Masonry.
tom268
Registered User
It is a typical emotion, that, after entering an elitist groups, one is eager to lift the standards, even higher than oneself would fulfill. That way, you can make yourself better.
But I don't think, that is meant here. The call to guard the West Gate does not mean to lift up the standards, it is just a reminder, not to forget ones duties.
Great discussion on this topic!!!
The three balls were changed because one disgruntled member could essentially kill a Lodge just because of difference in opinion on a separate issue or by mistakenly picking up an incorrect cube. This was supported by the committee and a I am curious if the same committee will in just 4 or 5 years change their position just because of a recommendation. I personally have witnessed a Past Master and his cronies vote against a candidate just because of a personally vendetta against the Worshipful Master. The laws protect this behavior with the secret ballot, the inability to discuss a candidate's information, and the inability to investigate a ballot. The sad part of it is no one wins. How many times have you seen 3 favorable investigation reports and a unfavorable ballot? I have seen about 4 in my 4 years. I was on the investigation of one and it was a punch to the stomach because of the time spent and the thorough investigation given. At that point I knew justice was not served.
I just don't feel the solution to guarding the gates are to lower the number to reject. I think it was a great idea to switch to 3 to prevent an ego from being able to control the Lodge. Masonry is perfect but the Mason is not. I think we need to look at the WHOLE picture not just the vote. There is a ton of great input in this thread and I know that the powers to be do read this stuff.
The three balls were changed because one disgruntled member could essentially kill a Lodge just because of difference in opinion on a separate issue or by mistakenly picking up an incorrect cube. This was supported by the committee and a I am curious if the same committee will in just 4 or 5 years change their position just because of a recommendation. I personally have witnessed a Past Master and his cronies vote against a candidate just because of a personally vendetta against the Worshipful Master. The laws protect this behavior with the secret ballot, the inability to discuss a candidate's information, and the inability to investigate a ballot. The sad part of it is no one wins. How many times have you seen 3 favorable investigation reports and a unfavorable ballot? I have seen about 4 in my 4 years. I was on the investigation of one and it was a punch to the stomach because of the time spent and the thorough investigation given. At that point I knew justice was not served.
I just don't feel the solution to guarding the gates are to lower the number to reject. I think it was a great idea to switch to 3 to prevent an ego from being able to control the Lodge. Masonry is perfect but the Mason is not. I think we need to look at the WHOLE picture not just the vote. There is a ton of great input in this thread and I know that the powers to be do read this stuff.
On a side note the law that Bill Lins stated is what used against a member of our Lodge when he sent out an email detailing his investigation and how pleasant the candidate was. Nothing more than what is discussed here in this thread. He was told by the Grand Secretary that he was in violation of Grand Lodge law and only what is on the petition and investigation report is what can be told to the Lodge. Even if you state facts it is campaigning in one way or the other according to what we were told by the Grand Secretary but I have seen different opinions. Until the Grand Master issues an ruling defining this it will be an opinionated statement. I think a ruling could totally change the game if it said that the investigators could be questioned and any member issue ANY information they feel pertinent to the character of a candidate and it would not be considered campaigning. Then the gate becomes guarded in my opinion but as long as we stick to the current "no information" report then we will continue to leave the door wide open and not guarded.
tom268
Registered User
In my jurisdiction, we solved that problem in a different way. A candidate is only refused completely, if more than 3 black balls are thrown. 1-3 black balls have to be argumented and explained. That means, the brother, who threw the black ball has 3 days time, to explain himself to the WM (not in front of the brotherhood). Otherwise, the black ball is considered an error and negated. But, even if the brothers explain themselves, it is up to the WM to take their arguments into consideration or not. He may refuse the petitioner, he may postpone him for 1 year, or he may declare the ballot in favor and continue. Only with 4 black balls and up, this procedure is no longer used.
Ashton Lawson
Premium Member
Our entire investigation, recommendation, and voting process, in my opinion, is broken. I can't tell you how many times I see a guy walk in off the street, ask for a petition, and several guys in the lodge scramble to write their name on his petition stating they've known him a month or so just to avoid being put on the investigation committee. They've never met the guy before that day, and they're not willing to make him come for 3-6 months to give people a chance to actually get to know him before they recommend him. Make him wait and he might get away, right? We can't talk about him, so we can't question the signers on his petition that lied and said they know him, which encourages it even more because the behavior can only be condemned when there isn't a petition on the line. We can't question the investigators to make sure they did a thorough job, so we're left with no information on the man aside from a pile of uncertainty and a hardly useful yes or no from the investigators.
We've done such a good job convincing ourselves that we're going to die, that we've happily thrown open the doors to all who can pay the dues, and we don't seem to want to actually compare petitioners to the critical standards that we claim we uphold. We sacrifice our integrity in deference to the idea that we need quantity to survive and the really sad thing is that we've been doing it all along.
Go back and read the minutes from the early days of your lodge. Read the GL proceedings from the early days of your Grand Lodge. These are not new problems, it's just our turn to experience them.
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. - Ecclesiastes 1:9
We've done such a good job convincing ourselves that we're going to die, that we've happily thrown open the doors to all who can pay the dues, and we don't seem to want to actually compare petitioners to the critical standards that we claim we uphold. We sacrifice our integrity in deference to the idea that we need quantity to survive and the really sad thing is that we've been doing it all along.
Go back and read the minutes from the early days of your lodge. Read the GL proceedings from the early days of your Grand Lodge. These are not new problems, it's just our turn to experience them.
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. - Ecclesiastes 1:9
wwinger
Registered User
If there is someone like this that allows personal vendetta, (or racial bias), to influence their vote, they're not going to be stopped by extra black balls. They're not behaving Masonically anyway. Its not going to bother them to break the rules and enlist their cronies to vote with them either. 1 black ball or three, it makes no difference, the person you have described is going to stop the candidate.
How did you learn who voted against the candidate?
wwinger
Registered User
Sadly, what you say is true.
So lets get it fixed!
I'd support going back to one black ball.
Beathard
Premium Member
After the Grandmaster's Conference I fully support the one black ball resolution. I also believe that a group of brothers should be trained in proper investigation techniques. Investigation committees should be drawn from these trained brothers. I believe we, as Texas masons, should be ready to see a drop in numbers, but expect high quality membership. We should also be ready to dig deeply into our pockets to support our current infrastructure or be willing to liquidate fraternal assets. But that is just my two sense 8).