Should there be a standardized procedure for investigating petitioners?
At what point does an investigation become a nosy inquiry?
Have you ever heard a statement similar to this: "Oh, you don't have to investigate this boy, I've known him and his daddy for years".
How about this one: "I know he ain't no account, but, if we sign off on Bro. Jim's boy as being unfavorable, it would kill him. And anyway, just look what Bro. Jim Has done for this lodge."
And this one: "Yes, Billy, we know that you're president of the bank, but just how much money do you make?"
Yes, I the above may sound extreme, but what does make for a good investigation? What procedure would adequately apply to everyone?
Have you ever signed off or voted to accept a petitioner you wouldn't trust being around your daughter?
I believe this is an issue that lodges in general have not paid enough attention to.
What say the craft?
At what point does an investigation become a nosy inquiry?
Have you ever heard a statement similar to this: "Oh, you don't have to investigate this boy, I've known him and his daddy for years".
How about this one: "I know he ain't no account, but, if we sign off on Bro. Jim's boy as being unfavorable, it would kill him. And anyway, just look what Bro. Jim Has done for this lodge."
And this one: "Yes, Billy, we know that you're president of the bank, but just how much money do you make?"
Yes, I the above may sound extreme, but what does make for a good investigation? What procedure would adequately apply to everyone?
Have you ever signed off or voted to accept a petitioner you wouldn't trust being around your daughter?
I believe this is an issue that lodges in general have not paid enough attention to.
What say the craft?