# 2011 Proposed Grand Lodge Resolutions



## owls84 (Oct 20, 2011)

Have at em boys...

*RESOLUTIONS*

Amend Art. 331 & 332 to do business in the Masterâ€™s 1. Degree â€“ R. H. â€œBobâ€ Waters

Delete Art. 163d to terminate the GL Insurance Reserve 2. Fund and return the contributions to the Lodges
â€“ Richard â€œRickâ€ Townsend and Jack M. Harper, II.

Amend Art. 125 to permit the Grand Lodge Assistance 3. Fund to Brethren in good standing and their families suffering from incapacitating disabilities or disease, as the Committee may determine to enable the Trustees to broaden the use of this fund â€“ Richard â€œRickâ€ Townsend

Amend Art. 163, sections 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 to account 4. for no more than $19 (vice $25) in per capita fees for two years. â€“ LeShon Laird

Amend Article 316 to exempt military members serving 5. in a declared war zone from Lodge dues and GL per capita â€“ Mina Lodge #1456, Jerry Woehl, Secretary

Amend Article 318s, Section 4, to provide for distribution 6. of the MEF income (50% to the Lodges and 50% to be reinvested in the MEF) when the endowment unit is less than $100 â€“ Lonnie Irvin Daylight #1309

Amend the GL Laws to require a quarterly report be 7. sent to Lodges summarizing the current value of the Endowed Memberships and the financial status of Charitable Funds (Income and Expense) â€“ Robert W. Black & John Wilkerson

Amend GL Laws to require all petitioners for the Masonic 8. Degrees or for Reinstatement to undergo a professional background check as directed by the Grand Lodge and at the expense of the petitioner â€“ Robert J. Glasgow

Amend Masonic Form 26 to specify that the petitioner 9. acknowledges and agrees to the requirement for a background check, the use of his SSN, and that his degree fees will include the cost of the investigation. â€“ Oak Cliff Lodge #705.

Add Art. 404a and 307a to require a formal professional 10. background investigation of the petitioner for the degrees and require him to pay the fee for the investigation
â€“ Robert W. Foster

Amend Art. 506 that no petition with a felony conviction 11. is eligible to receive the degrees and that any undisclosed or concealed felony conviction of any Mason will result in automatic expulsion from Masonry by the Grand Lodge of Texas. â€“ Mike Whitis & Tom Hancock

Amend Art. 506, 12. Automatic Suspension or Expulsion to add â€œmisdemeanor involving moral turpitudeâ€ as a reason for automatic suspension or expulsion, and defining â€œmoral turpitudeâ€ as that used by the U.S. Department of State Affairs. â€“ Floyd Trammell

Amend Article I, Section 2, Constitution to forbid the 13. discussion of politics and religion in the Grand Lodge and in its Subordinate Lodges â€“ Leonard P. Harvey

Delete Art. 505, paragraph 37 to repeal the Masonic 14. disciplinary violation to â€œMake any negative reference or take any negative action in regard to a petitionerâ€™s or memberâ€™s faith, creed, or race at anytime.â€ â€“ Jodie R. Harris, Jr.

Amend Articles 300, 301, 302, 232a, 303, & 332 to permit 15. Lodge Officer Installations to be conducted under Article 232a, Certain Open Meetings Permitted, in lieu of opening a Master Masons Lodge â€“ Kenneth H. Kennedy

Amend the Grand Lodge Laws to require all cell phones 16. to be turned off before any meeting begins â€“ Garlon E. Evans

Change the name of San Juan Lodge #1173 to Llano 17. Grande Lodge #1173 â€“ San Juan #1173
Revise the following Masonic Districts: 41, 83 (eliminating 18. 59), 80, 81, 93-B, 94, 96 (eliminating 97) â€“ James M. McCrae

Amend Art. 284b to require all WM of subordinate 19. Lodges to ensure the filing of an IRS Form 990, 990 EZ, or 990N and provide a copy to the Grand Secretaryâ€™s office on or before November 15, and directs the finance Committee to monitor the process. â€“ â€œRickâ€ Townsend.

Revise Art. 271 for the Worshipful Master to remove 20. or replace subordinate Lodge officers. â€“ Richard H. McCowan, Jason C. Dworsky, Willis S. Howard III, & Charlie D. Riley.

*Grand Masterâ€™s Recommendatations*

Rescind the Three Blackball Rule by amending Art. 1. 352, 389, 418, 420, 421425, 428, and 429. Purpose to enhance the selection of qualified candidates. The recommendation will effect reinstatements in a Lodge or the petition to affiliate with a Lodge. One blackball or protest will stop actions on joining the Lodge.

Clarify the requirements for a Worshipful Master and 2. each Warden to be qualified for installation. All three must be able to open and close the four Lodges using the proper ritual approved by the Committee on Work, and each must have completed an approved Grand Lodge administrative course. The recommendation modifies Articles 276, 276a, and 297a.


----------



## Bill Lins (Oct 28, 2011)

owls84 said:


> Delete Art. 505, paragraph 37 to repeal the Masonic 14. disciplinary violation to “Make any negative reference or take any negative action in regard to a petitioner’s or member’s faith, creed, or race at anytime.” – Jodie R. Harris, Jr.



Y'all may recall me telling you about PGM Patterson's "committee report" regarding Art. 505.37 at Grand Lodge last year. For those who missed it, here's the transcript of his remarks from the 2010 Proceedings:

"I am Boyd Patterson, Past Master of Washington Lodge 1117 and Member of the Purposes and Policies Committee.

This committee expresses our conviction that religious toleration and respect are indispensable in the practice of true Freemasonry. We support the adoption of Resolution No. 11 for this reason.

It is impossible to reconcile our philosophy and its principles of the practice of brotherly love, relief and truth with personal conduct which would treat any petitioner with disdain based upon his religion or race.

Religious and racial intolerance are so contrary to what Masonry stands for that we are unable to conceive of the circumstances under which either can be deemed acceptable conduct by a Mason.

As we owe an obligation of respect to each other, so should we be bound in our determination of who is fitted to become a member among us. To demean a petitioner by assailing his religion or the color of his skin is to demonstrate a character unworthy of a Mason.

The Committee on Purposes and Policies urges the adoption of Resolution No. 11."


----------



## Bro. Brad Marrs (Oct 29, 2011)

Bill_Lins77488 said:
			
		

> Religious and racial intolerance are so contrary to what Masonry stands for that we are unable to conceive of the circumstances under which either can be deemed acceptable conduct by a Mason.



Thanks for reiterating this Brother Bill. It's well said, both times.


----------



## LukeD (Oct 29, 2011)

I look forward to the day this actually becomes a reality, and not just another example of "do as I say, not as I do."  I read and hear a lot about how we as Masons should never judge someone based on external qualifications, but I've seen mainstream and PHA both tell potential candidates they can petition their Lodge, however, they ensure they reiterate that mainstream is mostly white, and PHA is mostly black, and you may feel more comfortable with the other.  Hopefully we will be able to not just have recognition, but visitation and shared Masonic education.  We can learn a lot from each other.


----------



## JJones (Oct 29, 2011)

Just my .02...



Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Delete Art. 505, paragraph 37 to repeal the Masonic 14. disciplinary violation to â€œMake any negative reference or take any negative action in regard to a petitionerâ€™s or memberâ€™s faith, creed, or race at anytime.â€ â€“ Jodie R. Harris, Jr.



Honestly, I wonder what would motivate someone to even write up this resolution.  I understand others may feel differently, but it would seem like a step back for me.

Having read over these resolutions in full, the arguments presented in favor of this seem geared towards making Freemasonry a more Christian oriented fraternity.  Again, that was my interpretation.

As for cell phones on in the lodge?  This seems like a waste of time to bring up to me as well, let the lodges police etiquette like that on their own, there don't need to be any laws regulating that.

I really like all of the other resolutions however.


----------



## JJones (Oct 29, 2011)

If a black man approached me about joining our lodge I would treat him like any other candidate.

At the same time I would be honest with him and point out that he would probably be one of the only black members in our district.  If he's willing to accept that then more power to him!

I don't see any harm in pointing out the demographic differences between GLOT and PHA, I'd want potential candidates to make the most informed decision they can about joining.  If you ask me, it'd be better than not informing him and him coming to the realization that most the lodges in the area are white 'good ol' boy' clubs, some of which have racist members.

A bit off topic but I wanted to address a point.


----------



## LukeD (Oct 29, 2011)

I probably wasn't clear in my statement, and was trying to water it down.  I've seen it be more than just a heads up, "hey, you may want to check out the other Lodges."  It's more if a foot stomp, wink wink, we'll call you don't call us situation. Sorry if we are off topic. I forsee this being something on paper and not actually practiced or enforced.


----------



## owls84 (Oct 31, 2011)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Y'all may recall me telling you about PGM Patterson's "committee report" regarding Art. 505.37 at Grand Lodge last year.



I wonder what the committee will recommend this year. On the same note, was it not just 4 or 5 years ago that we switched to 3 balls reject and yet in so short of time there is a recommendation from the GM to change it back? I wonder if the committee will switch views on this as well since they supported the change to 3 balls reject. Funny still to me how I posted a poll asking where the failure was in our election of candidates and not one person said the 3 balls were the cause yet this is where the decision was made to make the change. It's like putting a band-aid on a sliced artery. 

On a side note, there are a few resolutions on not allowing ANYONE in with a crime involving moral turpitude or a felony and I really don't like this and think it should be up the investigation committee to do their job. I had a guy that at a young age was convicted of theft by check. Due to the amount it was a felony and he did probation. He was/is a great asset to the Lodge. To generally exclude them then why even have an investigation committee? If they pass a background check (like the proposed), pay their money, and they get passed the one ball rejection, why would you need to spend a month on getting to know them? Just make the process responsible instead of the individuals on the investigation committee. Its not the process that fails it's the people. What do you do about the members that already have felonies or were convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude? Do they get amnesty?  I know a PM that had a DWI before he was in the Fraternity, he would not have been given a chance under the proposed changes. 

I thought that was the point, to make good men and make them change to be better? If men can't change then what is Masonry for? Might as well change your slogan to, taking good men away from their families 2 - 3 nights a week with no reason. 

Just my opinion of coarse. I believe every action has a reaction and one must think of the reactions before acting.


----------



## Brent Heilman (Nov 1, 2011)

I think that sometimes people can be a little overzealous when it comes to crimes. If someone comes to petition and they are 40 but they committed a crime like your example when they were younger but have been of upstanding character since why would not allow them in? We have all made mistakes in our lives and it is the ones that learn from them and don't repeat them that should be considered. Not the ones that keep repeating the cycle over and over again. I wonder if some of those that propose changes like this would want people digging into their past? Everyone has some bones in the closet and some have complete skeletons or maybe two. It is the moral character of the man today that matters not what he was like 25 years ago. I am sure if we look back into our pasts we could all find something that at one time or another would have kept us out of this great Fraternity and it would be a shame to turn someone away just because they messed up once years ago.


----------



## Bill Lins (Nov 1, 2011)

Amen, Bro. Brent.  My religion, as I'm sure most of y'all's, preaches redemption. Most of us did stupid things back when we were teenagers. In Texas during the 60's & 70's, possession of _any_ amount of marijuana, as little as a roach, was a felony. Should we automatically reject a good man just because he tried a joint 40 years ago?

Our law book is already too thick, and many of our laws are knee-jerk reactions to things that have happened in a small number of Lodges. My feeling is that, in most instances, things should be left up to the individual Lodge and, if a problem develops, deal with the Lodge in question rather than punishing us all. As always, YMMV.


----------



## Michael Hatley (Nov 2, 2011)

What goes through may tell us a lot.


----------



## barryguitar (Nov 2, 2011)

There is only one issue before us in Texas, that is whether or not to extend full recognition and visitation rights to our Prince Hall Brothers. I cant help but notice that it's not on the agenda. All of these resolutions are frivolous and do nothing to improve retention or expansion. Every one of these resolutions involves either a money grab, power grab, or an attempt to tie the hands of the independent lodges when making their own decisions. If we need a LAW to tell us to turn off our cell-phones then something is strangely amiss. I strongly encourage all grand lodge voters to reject each and every one of these resolutions. Not a single one of these should have made it through committee.


----------



## JJones (Nov 2, 2011)

I'm curious, what is the process for writing a resolution anyhow?  I was under the impression any master mason could submit one.

I agree we don't need laws telling us to turn off our phones.  That should be left to the discretion of individual lodges and not because we have some law policing our actions.

As I mentioned before, I happen to like a large majority of these resolutions.  I'll let the votes decide what direction Texas Masons want to head in though.


----------



## tomasball (Nov 2, 2011)

A resolution must be submitted in writing by a Lodge or a Texas Past Master by May 17, to the Grand Secretary's office.  It will be reviewed by the Masonic Jurisprudence Committee to make sure it is in proper form, then referred to whatever committee the Grand Master chooses to study and report on it.  You may have an opportunity to appear before that committee to discuss it with them.


----------



## RedTemplar (Nov 2, 2011)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Our law book is already too thick, and many of our laws are knee-jerk reactions to things that have happened in a small number of Lodges. My feeling is that, in most instances, things should be left up to the individual Lodge



This is one thing that is wrong with our country, not enough states rights. I am almost always for home rule.


----------



## JJones (Nov 2, 2011)

Does anyone know if many resolutions get submitted every year? Or how many get dropped?

I ask because you'd think if the GLOT/Prince Hall situation would receive resolutions to fix it if enough people felt so strongly about it.


----------



## tsewall (Nov 2, 2011)

> I had a guy that at a young age was convicted of theft by check. Due to the amount it was a felony and he did probation. He was/is a great asset to the Lodge. To generally exclude them then why even have an investigation committee?
> 
> I thought that was the point, to make good men and make them change to be better? If men can't change then what is Masonry for? Might as well change your slogan to, taking good men away from their families 2 - 3 nights a week with no reason.
> 
> Just my opinion of coarse. I believe every action has a reaction and one must think of the reactions before acting.



Its particularly worrisome to me especially if the state in which the felony (or moral turpitude) committed doesn't have the same laws here in Texas. I'm thinking of a gentleman in Florida on TV recently for refusing to use pesticides which were chemical relatives of agent orange on his lawn who was convicted of a felony. There are some strange laws out there. Let the investigating do their job and trust the brethren to use sound judgement.

On a side note, there are a few resolutions on not allowing ANYONE in with a crime involving moral turpitude or a felony and I really don't like this and think it should be up the investigation committee to do their job.


----------



## Traveling Man (Nov 2, 2011)

> I thought that was the point, to make good men and make them change to be better? If men can't change then what is Masonry for?



One has to wonder; where to draw the line? Good beingâ€¦

This was told me by some brethren after some individuals were trying to contest a ballot of a candidate: 
â€œI didnâ€™t know we were a rehabilitation institutionâ€¦â€
Even after explaining this candidate was granted an â€œpardon based on innocenceâ€œ.
I was under the impression that in order to build an outstanding edifice one must start with a sound foundation, no? Why are we constantly marginalising excellence, while rewarding mediocrity?
I was under the impression we came here to improve ourselvesâ€¦ not rehabilitate.
Then what?


----------



## Bill Lins (Nov 2, 2011)

Traveling Man said:


> I was under the impression that in order to build an outstanding edifice one must start with a sound foundation, no?



Isn't that what "taking a good man & making him better" means?


----------



## JJones (Nov 3, 2011)

It really depends on what you define 'good' as.  When I first joined Freemasonry, at least at my lodge, there really much depth to the investigation process and ,providing you weren't a felon, the investigation committee didn't really give it a lot of thought.

Did that mean all initiates were good men?  No, it just meant they could stay out of trouble or convince their investigators they've turned their life around.

So while we should take good men and make them better, we're not a rehabilitation institution, as stated previously.  In my mind the good men we should be looking for are those types that already demonstrate some degree of morals and attributes we try to foster as masons.

If a felony keeps a man from being a Mason that is unfortunate, but in some cases it might not be easy to tell how much he's reformed until it's too late.  There's also Masonry's reputation to consider as well, especially in smaller communities, when people wonder why our noble and selective fraternity is admitting felons.

Just my two cents though.  A lot of people seem concerned when stricter requirements for joining get brought up but I believe you can have quality or you can have quantity, but you can't have both.


----------



## owls84 (Nov 3, 2011)

Traveling Man said:


> This was told me by some brethren after some individuals were trying to contest a ballot of a candidate:
> “I didn’t know we were a rehabilitation institution…”



A problem with this is it is hypocritical. Unless I am misunderstanding this, which I am sure I am, the men that spoke to you were holding a candidate to standard they were not holding themselves to. These men were violating GL law by discussing a ballot, how they would vote, or why they voted a certain way. Having said that, I don't think anyone here is saying we need to rehabilitate but rather forgive those who have been rehabilitated. It should be an individual case by case basis and if the investigation committee is not doing their job don't blame the petitioners blame they lazy investigators. 



> I ask because you'd think if the GLOT/Prince Hall situation would receive resolutions to fix it if enough people felt so strongly about it.



This is not like a club wanting recognition this is another Grand Jurisdiction requesting it and it must go through the Fraternal Relations committee and be reported on as other jurisdictions are each year. It is not as easy as a resolution to recognize them due to the formalities. In this case there was a one year layover and should be reported this year with the recommendation of the committee. This is so they can work out any logistics if needed.


----------



## KFerguson84 (Nov 5, 2011)

Isn't that what "taking a good man & making him better" means?[/QUOTE]

No, that's taking a bad man and making him good. That's not our business. Rehabilitation is a word for taking a person with an extremely bad habit (be it addiction, theft, what have you) and making them a functional member of society. We in masonry want men who are already at the upper echelon of functional society to elevate them into a model of what functional society should strive to be.


----------



## Bill Lins (Nov 5, 2011)

Bro. Kyle, I must disagree. Bro. Brent and I were both speaking of someone who had committed an offense and, through time, had rehabilitated _himself_. I see no reason that such a person should be denied the right to petition for the Degrees. Remember, he has to be (in Texas) recommended by 5 Masons, 2 of whom must be members of the Lodge petitioned, before the petition can be presented to the Lodge. Those Brethren should know the petitioner well enough to be satisfied of his rehabilitation before recommending him. Then, as stated by other Brethren, the investigating committee can do their job.


----------



## Mac (Nov 6, 2011)

I hope these resolutions aren't indicative of returning to an older system with draconian measures.  Looking for ways to get rid of existing members (misdemeanors of moral turpitude?) and going back to one black ball, and opening a Master's Lodge for everything...

It just feels like we're doing the opposite of evolving.

In a state where old prejudices are still carried by some of our old-timers (and unfortunately some young brothers as well), I would think it unmasonic to grant that brother the privilege of denying a good man's admission to the fraternity based on nothing besides his religion or skin color.  And someone wants to remove the bit about it being an offense to make disparaging remarks about a man's religion or race?  That seems like a terrible idea to me personally.

I can only hope half of these are thrown out, otherwise this will be a very boring Grand Communication in my opinion.  A good number of these don't strike me as "positive" resolutions where everyone leaves the room thinking Masonry has been improved.  Aside from money, the big concern seems to be on finding reasons to get men out of Masonry or prevent them from getting in.

The cliche is "evolve, or die."  I look forward to observing the evolution of Freemasonry in Texas, but I don't know that this year we will make any major steps in that direction.


----------



## bullrack33 (Nov 7, 2011)

Well said Mac, well said indeed!


----------



## Traveling Man (Nov 7, 2011)

Trying to roll back time is unacceptable period; those supposed good old days are a thing of the past!!


----------



## Mac (Nov 21, 2011)

Based on discussion in Lodge on the resolutions, I anticipate this being an interesting annual communication.  I wish I could be there, but best of luck staying civil on some pretty hot topics.


----------



## Brent Heilman (Nov 22, 2011)

I think that the debate could be pretty lively on some of these issues. We, in Oklahoma, just had our GL communication and it got heated on some of the proposed resolutions and the only two that were really "hot-button" type issues were communicating more than one degree in a day and allowing business to be conducted on the EA or FC degree at the WM's discretion. Good luck to my Texas Brothers on this debate. I hope it does turn out for the betterment of the Fraternity.


----------



## Bill Lins (Nov 22, 2011)

Brent Heilman said:


> We, in Oklahoma, just had our GL communication and the only two that were really "hot-button" type issues were communicating more than one degree in a day and allowing business to be conducted on the EA or FC degree at the WM's discretion.


 
What did y'all decide? (Inquiring minds wish to know!) :wink:


----------



## Dave in Waco (Nov 22, 2011)

Greetings Brethren!!
It's been a busy year for me, but I do still keep an eye here. I do have to comment on Resolution 14: the deletion of Article 505 Paragraph 37. As a Mason I am ashamed to think that another Mason would suggest such a deletion. I think it nothing more them a thinly veiled attempt to allow them to be a racist, a most unmasonic act. 

On a procedural note, I do not think that because of this being acted upon last year can even be addressed at GL this year without a 2/3 majority vote or something like that to discuss it. Judging by the overwelming vote in favor of this resolution last year, I doubt it will be discussed. 

As many of you I have talked know I feel it is sad enough that this resolution was needed in the first place. It's down right appalling that a Mason would suggest taking it off the books after a year. 

In this country, you have the right to be a racist. I suggest people choosing that path of hate join a group founded on those principles instead of trying to defame Freemasonry, an organization rooted in tolerance, with their unwholesome views.


----------



## Bill Lins (Nov 22, 2011)

Dave in Waco said:


> On a procedural note, I do not think that because of this being acted upon last year can even be addressed at GL this year without a 2/3 majority vote or something like that to discuss it.


 
Actually, it's the other way around. Had the resolution been _defeated_ last year, we would have had to wait 3 years before bringing it up again unless 2/3rds of the Lodges & Members voted to reconsider it.

*Art. 172. Resolutions: Law Changes; Charter Petitions.* 
(in part) Unless approved by a two-thirds majority of Lodges and members present, any resolution proposing any change in this Grand Lodge or its Laws or affecting jurisprudence in any way that has been rejected by a vote of this Grand Lodge, the subject matter of such proposal shall not again be considered for a period of three (3) years subsequent to the Grand Annual Communication at which the proposal was considered. (~1999)


----------



## Dave in Waco (Nov 23, 2011)

Thanks for the law clarification Bro. Bill. I had not looked it up. Just had gotten in from a 3 hour Stated Meeting. We did something for the second time I have never heard anyone doing before. We called off, and we went and visited another Lodge during our refreshment and then came back to finish our meeting.


----------



## Brent Heilman (Nov 23, 2011)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> What did y'all decide? (Inquiring minds wish to know!)



Well it was decided that we could not conduct business meetings on the EA and FC degrees. It was defeated and I was surprised at the number of people against it. My personal take is that if left to the WM why wouldn't it be okay? Most of them are just paying bills anyway so no harm in them being there for that, plus it helps make people feel like they are actually a part of something. 

The other was also defeated, but as a side note the Grand Master put out this message: "Now for the news for those men who may have wanted to join the  Fraternity but felt that, especially in these economic conditions they  just did not have the time. Usually it takes at least 3 months to become  a Master Mason, with materials which must be memorized after each stage  of membership. During 2012, it will be possible for a man to petition a  Lodge, take the Entered Apprentice Degree there, and then take the  second and third degrees in one day with a group. Two such special days  are being planned. Information will be sent to the Lodges shortly." I am not happy about this at all. I am glad the "all the way in a day" was defeated but this is not much better. 

As a summary here are the results:

Resolution #1 - Grand Master cannot issue a  dispensation for  a Lodge to confer more than two Degrees on an individual in any  one  calendar day - Failed
Resolution #2 - A Brother  whose application for  affiliation to a Lodge has been rejected must  wait 1 year before re-applying -  Passed
Resolution #3 - Changes requirement of Lodge from  submitting monthly reports to quarterly - Failed
Resolution  #4 - During Annual Communication of  Grand Lodge, matters of substance  can only be voted on during Saturday session -  Passed
Resolution #5 - Provides alternative editing  committee for Grand Lodge Proceedings - Passed
Resolution #6 - Allows Lodges to conduct business  on an EA or FC Degree - Failed
Resolution #7 - Pulled from  Consideration
Resolution #8 - Pulled from  Consideration
Resolution #9 - Changes composition of  Jurisprudence Committee - Failed
Resolution #10 - Increases compensation for Grand  Secretary - Failed
Resolution #11 - Changes computation and  distribution of interest earned on endowed Perpetual Membership fund -  Failed
Resolution #12 - Increases Per Capita from $8.00 to  $13.00 - Failed
Resolution  #13 - Changes the policy concerning the  handling of vacancies during  the filing period for Grand Lodge offices -  Passed


----------



## Brent Heilman (Nov 23, 2011)

Originally I may have misquoted the 1st resolution. If I did I hope the above cleared it up.


----------



## Bill Lins (Nov 23, 2011)

Brent Heilman said:


> Resolution #12 - Increases Per Capita from $8.00 to  $13.00 - Failed


 
Now _that_ ought to draw a comment or two!


----------



## Bill Lins (Nov 23, 2011)

Dave in Waco said:


> We did something for the second time I have never heard anyone doing before. We called off, and we went and visited another Lodge during our refreshment and then came back to finish our meeting.


 
Now that's cool!


----------



## Brent Heilman (Nov 28, 2011)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Now _that_ ought to draw a comment or two!


 
Yeah you would think it would have. I see no reason why that one didn't pass. It is getting ridiculous to think that a $5 increase would fail when so many others are higher than that.


----------



## Ashton Lawson (Nov 28, 2011)

Your Per Capita increase failed because Masons are willing to routinely pay $100 to take their family of four to dinner and a movie, but complain incessantly that dues of $100 a year will immediately put them in the poorhouse. 

Apparently, brothers on a fixed income would also be left in the cold, and allegedly nobody in one of history's greatest charitable organizations would lift a finger to help them.

If I had a dollar for every time a Brother lit a cigarette or pulled a chew prior to telling me how hard a dues increase would be on him...but I digress.

Bollocks.


----------



## Brent Heilman (Nov 30, 2011)

Esoteric Theurgist said:


> Your Per Capita increase failed because Masons are willing to routinely pay $100 to take their family of four to dinner and a movie, but complain incessantly that dues of $100 a year will immediately put them in the poorhouse.
> 
> Apparently, brothers on a fixed income would also be left in the cold, and allegedly nobody in one of history's greatest charitable organizations would lift a finger to help them.
> 
> ...



So true Brother! I do not feel that this was asking too much. Our Lodge dues are $65/year. A five dollar increase is not much at all in the grand scheme of things. We have a few Brothers that are either in a nursing home or assisted living facility and as such are on a very fixed income. In order for them to continue their membership our Lodge waives their dues and either pays their per capita out of general fund or by passing the hat. I am sure that there are other places that might not do something like that. It really irks me when I hear of people complaining how it would affect them. I see it all the time by some of our surrounding Lodges. People are always willing to complain about the state of the Lodge or our Fraternity but a rarely willing to do something about it. As you said I digress also. This is not the thread for that.


----------



## rhitland (Dec 1, 2011)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Y'all may recall me telling you about PGM Patterson's "committee report" regarding Art. 505.37 at Grand Lodge last year. For those who missed it, here's the transcript of his remarks from the 2010 Proceedings:
> 
> "I am Boyd Patterson, Past Master of Washington Lodge 1117 and Member of the Purposes and Policies Committee.
> 
> ...



That speech gave me the goose bumps because he spoke with such conviction as well, a moment at GL I will not soon forget thanks for posting Brother Bill.


----------



## rhitland (Dec 3, 2011)

What a great Grand lodge session that was.  Cannot wait till next year


----------



## davidterrell80 (Dec 3, 2011)

I would continue the expulsion of Felons. However, I would also allow an Expelled individual to Petition for Reinstatement, after due time, and allow the Lodge to decide under fairly strict conditions.


----------



## Bro Mike (Dec 3, 2011)

Can someone post the results of the votes on the resolutions.


----------



## Bill Lins (Dec 4, 2011)

With apologies to Bud Light, Here We Go!

#1- business to be done only in a MM Lodge- not adopted
#2- terminating the GL insurance reserve fund- adopted
#3- broadening the class of beneficiaries of the GL assistance fund- adopted
#4- to delay the imposition of the full per capita increase- not adopted
#5- to exempt Lodges from per capita of active military members- amended and adopted
#6- to increase the amount of the distribution from the endowed membership fund- amended and adopted
#7- for GL to provide quarterly financial reports to the Brethren- amended and adopted
#8- re: background investigation of petitioners- withdrawn
#9- re: background investigation of petitioners- discussion postponed until the next Grand Annual Communication (2012)
#10- re: background investigation of petitioners- discussion postponed until the next Grand Annual Communication (2012)
#11- prohibiting convicted felons from petitioning for the degrees and mandating expulsion of Masons found to have omitted or concealed information of felony convictions when petitioning- adopted

#12- providing for the suspension or expulsion of Masons upon conviction of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude- not adopted
#13- prohibiting the discussion of partisan politics and sectarian religion in the GL or blue Lodges- adopted
(ADDENDUM- As this resolution would change a provision of our Constitution, it will require an affirmative vote at next year's Grand Annual Communication before taking effect.)

#14- to delete Art. 505.37 prohibiting discrimination on racial or religious grounds- this resolution was ruled to not be in proper form by the Jurisprudence Committee, who also advised that it could not be put into proper form. As such, it was not allowed to be considered.

#15- to allow officers to be installed without first opening a Master Masons' Lodge- not adopted
#16- to require that cell phones be turned off while in a tiled Lodge- not adopted
#17- to allow San Juan #1173 to change its name to Llano Grande #1173- adopted
#18- to move certain Lodges into other Districts and eliminate certain Districts- withdrawn
#19- to require Lodges to follow IRS rules regarding the filing of 990 reports- adopted
#20- to change the procedure for the removal from office of certain Lodge officers- withdrawn

GM's recommendation #1- to require only 1 blackball for denial of the Degrees- not adopted
GM's recommendation #2- to require the SW & JW of a Lodge to certify as qualified under the provisions of Art. 276 (a) prior to installation- adopted

GJW- Michael Wiggins

Also, the Grand West affirmed the suspension of the Charter of Magnolia Lodge #113 for cause.

I apologize for the tardiness of this report, but I was abducted by certain Brethren Friday evening and coerced to consume vast quantities of adult beverages almost against my will. :wink:  (Since I was forced to endure said abuse, could I please have my :beer: emoticon back?)


----------



## Ashton Lawson (Dec 4, 2011)

As a witness of said coercion Bill, I can attest to the validity of your claim of forced consumption. I nearly fell victim myself, but my timely order of a double water tall (no rocks), I think saved me.

Thank you for the report.


----------



## Bro Mike (Dec 4, 2011)

Thank you Bill. I was up there Friday, but I had to leave before the Grand West considered many of the resolutions.


----------



## LRG (Dec 5, 2011)

Thank you Brother Bill.
I hope that was scanned, if not B/Blake owes you big time ( that was a lot of freakin typing)
Wow


----------



## Bill Lins (Dec 5, 2011)

LRG said:


> I hope that was scanned



No such luck. :-(


----------

