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!

Can a brother serve on an investigation committee for a lodge of which he is not a member?

LCWebb

Premium Member
Had a brother ask me this the other day and while my inclination was "no", I thought I would seek the counsel of those wiser than I.


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro
 

Ripcord22A

Site Benefactor
In NM only members of a lodge can vote on a petition; in Orgeon members of the lodge MUST vote and members of the district MAY vote, so I assume that in OR that as long as you are a member of the district you could The better question is why?
 

Brother_Steve

Premium Member
Had a brother ask me this the other day and while my inclination was "no", I thought I would seek the counsel of those wiser than I.


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro
I would have to say no. Jurisdiction aside, the purpose of the ballot box is sacred to the members of that lodge. It's why only member of this lodge shall proceed to vote. Why would a non-member get to sway that vote to begin with by finding a person favorable or unfavorable?

Imagine a non-member coming back with an unfavorable position and you vote based on that. He essentially caused a colored ballot box.

Having said that, I don't think the ICs do enough vetting.

As the world gets smaller, vetting should jump to the district level when it comes to investigations.

We have to post the name of the person in the Lodge's trestle board for 28 days. It should be the district now.
 

chrmc

Registered User
As the world gets smaller, vetting should jump to the district level when it comes to investigations.

How would you figure that working? With the way districts and Grand Lodges work I've got a hard time seeing how moving investigations further up the chain would make them more efficient. Unless you're referring to background checks of course?
 

Ripcord22A

Site Benefactor
Here in NM GL has a very in depth and expensive background check.

I think what he meant was that members of the distruct should get a say in the new member. After all arent we charged to vote for the "good masonry"...my 2 jurisdictions are.

I've made this argument in the past in another thread about balloting.... I am in favor of members of the district being able to vote on a candidate as may be a member of another Lodge has some information that he is unable to pass along by any other means than that of dropping a black Cube. Such as myself as an army recruiter Maybe that person admitted something to me in confidence that due to the Privacy Act I am not allowed to say anything to anyone other than other recruiters and the army.

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app
 

LCWebb

Premium Member
I know in Texas all those who are members of GLOT subordinate lodges may vote on petitions. I felt certain about the investigation part, just didn't know the exact law.
 

chrmc

Registered User
I've made this argument in the past in another thread about balloting.... I am in favor of members of the district being able to vote on a candidate as may be a member of another Lodge has some information that he is unable to pass along by any other means than that of dropping a black Cube. Such as myself as an army recruiter Maybe that person admitted something to me in confidence that due to the Privacy Act I am not allowed to say anything to anyone other than other recruiters and the army

Unfortunately this can and has also been used in the past for unmasonic conduct. I personally know people belonging to minority groups that have been black balled because word got around, and suddenly 5 people showed up that had the right to vote even though the didn't belong to the lodge.
It's deeply unmasonic, but it does unfortunately happen.
 

Bloke

Premium Member
Okay, for the purposes of comparison; we renamed our "Committee of Inquiry" to as a "Membership Sub-Committee". The Membership Committee is appointed by the Master and the Committee appoints its own "Membership Sub-Committee". "Where possible", the Membership Committee have at least two past masters. It's actually silent on if this committee must be members, but I am not sure I would allow a non-member membership unless well known to the lodge. The only restriction is "The proposer and seconder of any prospective candidate currently under consideration may not be members of this committee, nor may any referee for a prospective candidate."
 

BullDozer Harrell

Registered User
Had a brother ask me this the other day and while my inclination was "no", I thought I would seek the counsel of those wiser than I.


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro
This type of activity is not permissible in my GL's Constitution & By-laws.
No Worshipful Master of any subordinate lodge has this right of power, privilege or perogative in accordance with our Law.
If it ever did happen and my GL got wind of it, it would definitely create trouble for any transgressor(s) of this Law.

Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app
 

Brother_Steve

Premium Member
How would you figure that working? With the way districts and Grand Lodges work I've got a hard time seeing how moving investigations further up the chain would make them more efficient. Unless you're referring to background checks of course?
I meant the other sentence to be a "part" of this idea.

"We have to post the name of the person in the Lodge's trestle board for 28 days. It should be the district now."

Lodges are closer together now in the sense of driving time. So as that goes, the character of man travels farther.

So, if I see someone petitioning a lodge in my district who I know to be a habitual liar, I could then pass the info to my WM and he to the district deputy GM to get in touch with the lodge and let them know.

Yes, it is more red tape, but there are 28 days at the minimum that a potential candidate has to wait.
 

chrmc

Registered User
I meant the other sentence to be a "part" of this idea.

"We have to post the name of the person in the Lodge's trestle board for 28 days. It should be the district now."

Lodges are closer together now in the sense of driving time. So as that goes, the character of man travels farther.

So, if I see someone petitioning a lodge in my district who I know to be a habitual liar, I could then pass the info to my WM and he to the district deputy GM to get in touch with the lodge and let them know.

Yes, it is more red tape, but there are 28 days at the minimum that a potential candidate has to wait.

Ok. That makes a lot more sense, and is probably a good idea if executed right. I think in Texas there's a rule about not being allowed to share a candidate's name in writing, but not sure if that goes for a petitioner as well.
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
From GLoTX Law:
Art. 405a. Publication of Names Prohibited.
The names of Petitioners, Candidates, Entered Apprentice Masons and Fellowcraft Masons shall not be published in a Lodge newsletter or any news media public or private. (Adopted 1990)
 

Bloke

Premium Member
From GLoTX Law:
Art. 405a. Publication of Names Prohibited.
The names of Petitioners, Candidates, Entered Apprentice Masons and Fellowcraft Masons shall not be published in a Lodge newsletter or any news media public or private. (Adopted 1990)
Not even in a summons
 

Ripcord22A

Site Benefactor
Not even in a summons
I don't think that a summons is "news Media". In new mexico we have the New Mexico Freemason that is put out by the GL quarterly and the brothers that took any 0f degrees during that time are listed.
 
Top