I've enjoyed these posts and thought they were good.. but not so on some of the recommendations
First and foremost, all black balls would be able to be appealed to a panel of three District Deputy Grand Masters anonymously if there were suspicions as to why they were cast. The appeal would require the showing of cause as to why an individual believed that a black ball was unfairly cast. Upon receiving the appeal, a District Deputy would inform the Worshipful Master of it and give them 30 days to make their case. Abstract explanations as to why a vote was cast will not be sufficient. Instead, there must be a valid reason such as a criminal record or other hard proof that the person is unfit to join the fraternity. The District Deputies would then investigate the claims and if well founded would uphold the vote and the petitioner would be rejected. If, on the other hand, there is no evidence to support the casting of a black ball, then the District Deputies would have the power and authority to overturn the vote of the Blue Lodge, expunge the record of the vote, and order that the petitioner be initiated by a simple majority vote of the three.
.
I don't like this. Firstly, we use a secret ballot. The change would remove that. Secondly, is the reason "I don't like him" or "I felt uncomfortable around him" a valid reason to black ball ? Perhaps it is... I've been in that situation and later proved to be correct when they applicant was shown to have criminal connections but no convictions. Lodges will simply side step the process by not putting applicants to the vote. The above is not the way to solve the problem.. The back ball system allows lodges to self regulate which I think is their right. One would hope Tenn lodges who admited gay and black guys would grow while those that did not would not... and time would sort the problem out ?
Second, ANY member would be permitted to bring charges against ANY other Lodge or member anonymously on the basis of racial, prejudicial, or homophobic conduct. The charges would be filed with the District Deputy who may assign any member of his district to visit the Lodge and investigate the claims.
This might create an Masonic Nanny State. Me no likie that idea,,
Jurisdiction vary, but charges can often be brought against a brother from another lodge. The trick is to define prejudice on race or homophobia as unmasonic. Most places, that's probably the case already - but not in Tenn obviously..
Third, in terms of discovery, the District Deputy would have to produce the statements made by the anonymous Brother and his investigator. The Lodge and member would reserve the right to serve interrogatories through the District Deputy in order to confront their accuser. The accuser must respond to the interrogatories within 30 days and they must be served upon the Defendant.
The idea the "anonymous brother" would remain so in the above is not sound..
Next, I would propose that the Right Worshipful Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania sever fraternal ties with the Grand Lodge of Georgia and the Grand Lodge of Tennessee until the edicts are reversed...... I would propose that we bring back the tradition of the Masonic Jurisdiction Thereunto Belonging. If the vote were approved at a meeting of the Grand Lodge, then I would immediately issue an edict stating that any Blue Lodge in Georgia or Tennessee that disagreed with the edicts of the Grand Lodge of Georgia or Tennessee could surrender their charter to me and would immediately be granted a new Charter under the jurisdiction of the Right Worshipful Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania
.
I would disregard most of the writers suggestions but would contemplate the above. While GLs are sovereign an can self regulate, if we with drew recognition to the point as seeing a GL outside Freemasonry, then you could issue warrants in the Geographic Location once held by that now (in our eyes) defunct GL. This would provide a haven for brothers who see the current position of a GL like Tenn as "unmasonic" but doing so would likely create a new schism the likes of Prince Hall or Ancients and Moderns. The same could be achieved simply by brothers finding a friendly GL, joining it, and requesting a traveling warrant to work locally to those brothers, but I guess that's kinda what the writer proposes anyway, but framed in my terms, it's less confrontational. At the end of the day, we need to keep Tenn and Georgia at the "negotiation table"...
It's a hard one - I see contradictions in what I've written in the above.
What do others think ?
