# 3 Black Balls Vs 1 Black Ball



## Tx4ever (Mar 28, 2011)

Im interested in your thoughts please.


----------



## RTidwell (Mar 28, 2011)

Does not apply to me.  My home lodge uses cubes.

The law book is clear on what results depending on the number of rejection votes.

My question is, do you in fact perform a Masonic offense by asking for more of a particular color when all have been used. Kind of a trick question there.


----------



## Christopher (Mar 28, 2011)

I personally think the whole system surrounding the selection of new members needs an overhaul.


----------



## Dave in Waco (Mar 28, 2011)

RTidwell said:


> My question is, do you in fact perform a Masonic offense by asking for more of a particular color when all have been used. Kind of a trick question there.




There should be enough of both colors in the ballot box for each member present.  In other words, if there are 18 members present, there should be 18 white and 18 black that can be used.


----------



## RTidwell (Mar 28, 2011)

Dave in Waco said:
			
		

> There should be enough of both colors in the ballot box for each member present.  In other words, if there are 18 members present, there should be 18 white and 18 black that can be used.


That is true but when you have a large number of brothers present for voting is it practical or wise to hold a reserve amount in a separate container?  Say you have 50 brothers show up you would need 100 balls.  Most ballot boxes I have seen are unable to hold that many ball waiting to be cast.


----------



## Dave in Waco (Mar 28, 2011)

They had a good presentation on Balloting at last year's JW Retreat.  They covered this.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Mar 28, 2011)

Christopher said:


> I personally think the whole system surrounding the selection of new members needs an overhaul.


 Do tell...


----------



## RTidwell (Mar 28, 2011)

Dave in Waco said:
			
		

> They had a good presentation on Balloting at last year's JW Retreat.  They covered this.



I haven't been to a Wardens Retreat in 5 years.  So I don't know what they covered or didn't.


----------



## Tx4ever (Mar 28, 2011)

Im sorry that i was not clear in my question, Let me try this again...  How about only one Black Cube {Vote} to reject an applicant for the degrees, or do you prefer the way it is now.


----------



## Christopher (Mar 28, 2011)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Do tell...


 
Well, for one, I think the crack-down on information seems...strange.  Members are not allowed to talk to each other about petitioners or share information, as I understand it.  If one member has negative information about a petitioner, then, the way I understand it, they're allowed to vote against him, but that's it; they can't share that information with other members of the lodge.  Likewise, the investigation commitee's reports are rather lacking in information.  They're either favorable or unfavorable.  I have to be honest, I wouldn't vote in any other election with so little information, not even school board or HOA elections.  Why should I have to vote on whether to accept someone into my most trusted circle of friends with so little information?

You could argue that I have the opportunity to be on the investigating committee myself and ask my questions, but there are a couple problems with that.  For one, it's not feasible for me to be on every investigating committee.  Likewise, it's hard to really get to know someone during an interrogation session, or even over the course of a few meals at the lodge.

This is what would make more sense to me.  For one, I think a petitioner should have to know at least two members of the lodge well in order to petition.  Second, these two (or more) men should have the opportunity to address the lodge during the meeting the petition is read and the brethren should have the chance to ask these brothers questions about the petitioner to find areas that the investigating committee might want to check out or ask about during the investigation, so that the investigation is both more efficient and more meaningful, and also to get insights about the petitioner that might not be readily apparent.  Then, investigative committees should, for one, give their report themselves, and, two, give a real report, letting the brethren know exactly what they found out that might be useful in making a voting decision.  The brethren should also have the opportunity to ask them questions, as well.  Then, finally, the candidate should be balloted on.  This is one area where I think we do things right.  I wouldnâ€™t personally change any of our balloting procedures, although I do think the number of black balls or cubes required to reject should be up to the lodge to decide and specify in their by-laws.  I also think that they should only reject the candidate from that lodge for a time, and not from every lodge.

My reasoning for all of this is based on my ideas of the lodge as a fraternity.  Iâ€™ve read a lot and heard a lot from various brothers who like the current system because they feel it prevents one grouchy brother in a lodge from screwing a petitioner out of membership in said lodge because he had a grudge against him or he had a toothache that day or whatever.  In my opinion, if peace and harmony are to truly prevail in a lodge and the spirit of fraternity be maintained, there has to be some freedom for brethren to reject candidates theyâ€™re simply not comfortable with, whether they have a good reason for their discomfort or not.  Thatâ€™s why I think rejection should only be rejection from that specific lodge and not from the fraternity as a whole.  There ought to be a mechanism to say to a petitioner, youâ€™re a great guy, but we think youâ€™d be a better fit at a different lodge.  In order to know if a candidate is a good fit or not, however, two things are necessary:  A) someone at the lodge has to have more than a passing acquaintance with the petitioner, and B) people with information about the petitioner have to have a legal means of sharing it with their lesser-informed brethren in an open and accountable way.

Iâ€™m not saying my idea is perfect.  Tweaking would be necessary to fit individual situations.  For instance, in my part of Houston, lodges are a dime a dozen and I could have joined any of 10 lodges as easily as the one I did join.  If the lodges in my area were to choose to reject with only one black ball, I donâ€™t think that would be terribly burdensome on petitioners.  However, in rural areas where lodges are more spaced out, you might have to go up to three black balls to reject in order to be fair to petitioners and ensure similar accessibility.

Anyway, since you asked, those are my ideas.


----------



## David Duke (Mar 28, 2011)

I agree with a lot of what you are suggesting but the part about rejecting from just the one lodge and different standards for lodges in the same jurisdiction in my opinion wouldn't work.

As far as rejecting from one lodge and not another if the second lodge accepts then that brother has the right to visit the rejecting lodge at anytime (in the correct degree) this could cause a bit of disharmony. The different standards would simply create mass confusion.


----------



## Dave in Waco (Mar 28, 2011)

I do agree there should be more information available on a candidate when we vote on them.  I believe the rule you are speaking of concerns electioneering.  For example, a brother has an issue with a candidate, so he gets a couple of other brothers to come visit for the purpose of black balling the candidate all because of his personal feelings.  I do agree with the rule barring electioneering, because I know of a few bad examples where it has kept good men out for someone's personal bias.

Now with that being said, I do think there should be an opportunity for open discussion in the lodge.  We opening discuss every other item we vote on, we should discuss candidates too.  It's always possible that a member might have some information about the candidate that had not come up in the investigation.  I think adding some procedures internally in the lodge to their investigation team's process could help some here.

As for the number of Black Balls, I like the 3 balls, because I have seen cases where someone might be upset about something else, and might cast a black ball because his feelings are hurt.  Or for that matter, a single black ball or cube, might be cast by accident by a member not paying the attention he should to what he picks up.  I believe that is the whole reason for switch from black balls to cubes, is to try to prevent accidents.


----------



## Benton (Mar 28, 2011)

Dave in Waco said:


> Now with that being said, I do think there should be an opportunity for open discussion in the lodge. We opening discuss every other item we vote on, we should discuss candidates too. It's always possible that a member might have some information about the candidate that had not come up in the investigation. I think adding some procedures internally in the lodge to their investigation team's process could help some here.



That's my only real beef with the current investigation/voting process, a lack of discussion at the time of vote, and careful investigations by the committee. I think perhaps some IC's are lax for want of members, and don't guard the West Gate quite as well as they should.


----------



## Beathard (Mar 28, 2011)

I agree that discussion should be allowed.  Come on - we discuss everything else in lodge, why not the people joing us?


----------



## Christopher (Mar 28, 2011)

Dave in Waco said:


> For example, a brother has an issue with a candidate, so he gets a couple of other brothers to come visit for the purpose of black balling the candidate all because of his personal feelings. I do agree with the rule barring electioneering, because I know of a few bad examples where it has kept good men out for someone's personal bias.




This is exactly what I was talking about, though.  Why would a petitioner want to belong to the same lodge as someone who dislikes him enough to organize a posse just to keep him out?  And, from a fraternal perspective, at least in my opinion, that brother was there first, and if he doesn't want the petitioner in his lodge, whether his feelings on the matter are justified or not, I think he ought to have some freedom to say, please try a different lodge, especially in an urban situation where there are so many lodges to choose from.

I do concede Bro. Duke's point that with visitation rights, this is all kind of a wash.  I am probably biased from my own experience, as I myself do not visit other lodges all that often, whereas I know some Masons visit other lodges more frequently than they visit their home lodge.


----------



## RTidwell (Mar 28, 2011)

I think that there should be some discussion about the candidate however it should be limited.  We do not want to cross the bounds of privacy and intrude on a persons life.  Also would we want to cross some of those lessons taught us?  What would you say if someone approached you before or after your initiation and said "hey I heard about ... during your ballot".  Harmful or not I just really don't like discussion about me in public when I am not there to defend myself or my actions.


----------



## Hippie19950 (Mar 28, 2011)

I have already come across the issue of one Lodge accepting when another didn't. The problem was that the Petitioner had stepped on some toes in that area. Though he had lived in that area ALL his life, and he had family who were Brothers, a group had gathered in order to keep the younger one from joining. He Petitioned another Lodge, and was warmly accepted, and from what I've seen of him and his Lodge, he has made a fine Mason, and is well accepted by the Brethren there. The other Lodge whose members had voted for him were all fine. The Brethren who voted against him, still have a sour taste about them, and always will. They have done it to others as well... This is why we are to vote from OUR heart...


----------



## tom268 (Mar 29, 2011)

What is the argument in not discussing a petitioner? I can't understand that. That could mean, letting the lodge run into it's demise with eyes wide open. Why should that happen?
In my jurisdiction, a petitioner has contact with a lodge, or with one brother, for about a year. After that, he may ask for a petion. When he has sent in his petition, the name of the petitioner is published in the lodge building, and sometimes in the masonic magazine (members only) so that brothers of neigboring lodges may come up with their knowledge of that petitioner.

After all this, we have the ballot.


----------



## Tx4ever (Mar 29, 2011)

From the Grand Masters Conference in Corpus on sat ,this will be the GM"s Resolution this year.{Going to 1 black ball/cube}


----------



## Benton (Mar 29, 2011)

We can discuss him informally outside of lodge, and within the lodge we read off the investigative committees report on the candidate, but in the actual lodge meeting there isn't any discussion on the floor regarding the candidate. If I haven't made it to the lodge in awhile but happen to be at that business meeting, I may not know the candidate, etc, and frankly the investigative committee reports don't tell you a whole lot. You end up placing a lot of faith in the committee.


----------



## Ashton Lawson (Mar 29, 2011)

I support going back to 1 black ball/cube.


----------



## Beathard (Mar 29, 2011)

My grandfather was mayor of his community for years. He ran against the same guy several times. My grandfather was blackballed every year for a total of 7. The the guy passed on. My grandfather finally made it in. I do not like the one black ball rule.

Let's make it a single black ball, but let everyone know who voted black. That would make it more legit. Actually that would be bad.

I  just don't agree with letting one jerk kill a lodge for years.


----------



## Ashton Lawson (Mar 29, 2011)

And I don't agree with letting one bad apple destroy a lodge from within. 

The West gate has stood unguarded for far too long, and Masonry has suffered devastating blows from the negligence of the brothers who have absconded their duties. 

Are there crappy examples like your grandad's? Sure. Are there a plethora more examples of a man who has no business being a Mason being admitted with barely a cursory glance? I believe so.

We take obligations that are binding and irrevocable. I believe a man should have the right to refuse to accept someone he doesn't want to be obligated to. It is not my place to judge his motives...that's God's realm.


----------



## Beathard (Mar 30, 2011)

I agree about guarding the west gate, but I believe it more complicated than dropping to one black ball. We are going to have a further reduction in membership when this goes into effect. I have no issue with small lodges. My smallest lodge has 32 members. My largest has 400. I enjoy the small one more. But with small lodges you increase the financial burden on each member. Is there a way to have more members and guard the west gate? Yes!

Stop using the investigation committee as a way to get non-active members involved. Make the investigation committee out of the best and most masonically educated brethren. Train them to guard well. Will we get bad apples? Sure!  1 black ball will not prevent bad apples either. 

What should we do to fix the bad apple issue? Find a faster way to compost the trash.


----------



## Dave in Waco (Mar 30, 2011)

I think some of this can be changed with changing the procedure to ballot.  I think we should ballot for a candidate like we normally do.  The petition is read.  The reports from the investigation committee are read.  Then there should be a motion from the floor to accept or reject the petition followed by a 2nd.  After the 2nd, then there should be a chance for discussion like there is on all motions.  There may be some, there may be none, but there should be a chance for the lodge members to openly discuss the candidate before voting on the committee reprots.

I also think there should be some better guidelines for the committee to cover during the investigation.  I know each person interviews differently, but I think there are more bases we can cover during the investigation.  I think there should be some guidelines set for the committee, either by the lodge or by GL.  

I think the single black ball is giving a little too much power to one person.  I think if there is open discussion on a motion like on most things we vote on, if there is a substandard candidate that has something question in his history that may not come out during the investigation, the lodge can be made aware of it during this discussion and vote accordingly.  This discussion should not be used as a time to electioneer for or against the candidate, but to discuss real information about them.


----------



## Ashton Lawson (Mar 30, 2011)

Beathard said:


> We are going to have a further reduction in membership when this goes into effect. I have no issue with small lodges.


 
Excellent. That's a good start. Maybe after that starts to finally happen we can start facing reality and begin consolidating the unneccesary bloat of lodges we currently have.


----------



## Beathard (Mar 30, 2011)

As long as everyone is willing to step up to pay the dues that will be required by small lodges or agree to sell our most outstanding properties (e.g. the Grand Lodge).  There are lodges in the US and Europe that are paying $50 or more dollars per month.  Yes, that is per month.  The cost of our infrastructure will not drop with membership.  The cost of belonging will rise.

Before we all jump on the 1 black ball wagon, I think we need to make sure that there is no other solution to the problem with the west gate.  I can name three lodges within a 30 mile distance of my home that will have issues with a controlling brother that will blackball every new member.  These brothers did it before the three ball change.  They are saying they will do it again.

We even have a couple in one lodge that will not let new brothers get involved if they ever attend another lodge as a visitor.  These are long term brethern that were voted in on the 1 ball rule.  The problem is not with the west gate alone.

Look at Arkansas, it is just as bad at the East Gate.

Now I am going to support the Grand Lodge and the Grand Master, but I really think that we are throwing the baby out with the bath water on this one.  We are not addressing the issue where it needs to be addressed.  If we were allowed to discuss the petitioners prior to voting, I believe bad apples would get 3 black balls.  If we move to 1 black ball, we are going to lose good men.

All good organizations make bad decisions from time to time.  It is usually due to people with good intentions making a decision that does not directly fix an issue.  This is usually due to not understaning the underlying issues.  If the issue is people getting in that should not be in when 1 member knows information on a candidate.  Let him share the information.  Let the lodge as a whole decide.  Don't put the prospective candidate's and the lodge's fate in the man's hands.


----------



## Ashton Lawson (Mar 30, 2011)

Most jurisdictions have a 1-black ball rule. Texas is one of few who does not have that rule. 

I don't think it's really that big of a deal.


----------



## Beathard (Mar 30, 2011)

Most jurisdictions have few lodges and most are small. Many jurisdictions use code books in lodge.  Many jurisdictions have dumbed down the esoteric work. Many jurisdictions have all 3 degrees on one day. Many jurisdictions do not allow plural membership. Do we have to change just because other jurisdictions do it differently?


----------



## Christopher (Mar 31, 2011)

Is it actually against Grand Lodge law to hold a discussion on the candidate when the petition is read or before the vote is taken, or is it only against custom?

---------- Post added at 10:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 AM ----------

To play devil's advocate, how does 3 black balls solve the Grouchy Brother problem?  As has already been pointed out on this thread, plenty of brothers are able to convince two other brothers to vote with them if they want to blackball someone.  Why not change it to majority vote?  Force the Grouchy Brothers to convince half the lodge to vote with them if they want to blackball someone.  No, it's not traditional, but neither is the three black ball rule.

On the other side, if there are lodges that have Grouchy Brothers who blackball everyone, one could argue that the free market will weed them out in favor of lodges with more open doors.  Eventually, I would imagine those lodges would die out from lack of new membership to pay the bills.


----------



## Benton (Mar 31, 2011)

Christopher said:


> Is it actually against Grand Lodge law to hold a discussion on the candidate when the petition is read or before the vote is taken, or is it only against custom?



Honestly not sure about this, but I'd be curious to know. I don't have a copy of the Grand Lodge Lawbook, unfortunately, so I can't look it up.




Christopher said:


> Eventually, I would imagine those lodges would die out from lack of new membership to pay the bills.



But you forget, we're completely unwilling to let any lodge die for any reason and Texas, and will join two, three, four, or more lodges just to keep charters active. It's lodge inflation, is what it is.

I think the three vote rule is fine. It's a good compromise between one nay rejecting and majority rule. 

Which I think isn't nearly selective enough. My college fraternity voted most things by majority rule, and some poor decisions can be made that way. 

Of my two college fraternities, one required 75% vote to allow a member in *after* completing all requirements, and the other required a *unanimous* decision by the brotherhood just to send them a bid (a petition, in effect). Both of those fraternities did just fine, and they were arguably stricter than our lodges. 

I think the balloting systems isn't the problem, it's the investigation.


----------



## Ashton Lawson (Mar 31, 2011)

Beathard said:


> Most jurisdictions have few lodges and most are small. Many jurisdictions use code books in lodge. Many jurisdictions have dumbed down the esoteric work. Many jurisdictions have all 3 degrees on one day. Many jurisdictions do not allow plural membership. Do we have to change just because other jurisdictions do it differently?


 
It hasn't been that long since we went to 3 black balls. In reality, all we'd be doing is reversing a previous decision, not following other jurisdictions.


----------



## Tx4ever (Mar 31, 2011)

Does anyone remember the reasons {Stated} for changing from 1 to 3?


----------



## MikeMay (Mar 31, 2011)

Benton said:


> I think the balloting systems isn't the problem, it's the investigation.



I'm not worried about the number of black balls, in fact I have no problem with having 3 instead of one to keep someone who may or may not hold a grudge from acting on that grudge. 

For me I do believe it all starts at the recommendation.  The investigation should confirm a recommendation and the recommendation shouldn't be given lightly...its the first stop in guarding the west gate.   And it shouldn't be the only point in which we guard the gates...


----------



## Beathard (Mar 31, 2011)

Exactly!  Then the investigations should be a second gate. Then, with a change to law, a discussion about the candidate could be a third gate.  With 3 properly used security gates we should have a better, and at the same time a system with less chance of abuse, method than a 1 ball solution.



			
				Tx4ever said:
			
		

> Does anyone remember the reasons {Stated} for changing from 1 to 3?



Abuses...


----------



## Bill Lins (Mar 31, 2011)

Christopher said:


> Is it actually against Grand Lodge law to hold a discussion on the candidate when the petition is read or before the vote is taken, or is it only against custom?


 
OK- the only thing I found was thus:

"*Art. 505. Certain Other Masonic Disciplinary Violations* 

17. Canvass publicly for or against the admission of a candidate into Masonry."

"Canvass" is defined as the act of "seeking orders or votes" or "determining opinions or sentiments". 

Speaking strictly for myself, I believe that if I have information about a candidate, be it good or bad, as long as I don't say "Vote for (or against) X", I can (and, in my mind, have the _duty_ to) advise the Lodge of said information. In addition, I do not believe anything said in a tiled Lodge can be construed as having been done "publicly". Of course, the Grand Master's & Jurisprudence Committee's mileage may vary. :wink:


----------



## Beathard (Mar 31, 2011)

Think I will get much flack when I ask the GM about this at the GM conference this Saturday?


----------



## Bill Lins (Apr 1, 2011)

Actually, I don't think he'll have a problem with it. It'll help us guard the west gate better, which is what he says he wants.


----------



## Tx4ever (Apr 1, 2011)

Believe me you wont have tp ask


----------



## tom268 (Apr 1, 2011)

Benton said:


> You end up placing a lot of faith in the committee.


 That's not a bad thing.


----------



## Benton (Apr 1, 2011)

tom268 said:


> That's not a bad thing.



It is if the committee is so eager for new members that they don't thoroughly investigate a new candidate.


----------



## Beathard (Apr 1, 2011)

Our committees are usually made up of inactive members that the WM is attempting to get involved. Not a good idea.


----------



## wwinger (Apr 2, 2011)

Beathard said:


> Our committees are usually made up of inactive members that the WM is attempting to get involved. Not a good idea.



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 (Apr 2, 2011)

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.


----------



## wwinger (Apr 2, 2011)

tom268 said:


> I have problems in understanding your ways.


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 (Apr 2, 2011)

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.


----------



## tom268 (Apr 3, 2011)

Timothy Fleischer said:


> 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.


 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.


----------



## owls84 (Apr 4, 2011)

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.


----------



## owls84 (Apr 4, 2011)

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.


----------



## Tx4ever (Apr 4, 2011)

Peace and Harmiony ... I know it would rip my heart out if some disgruntled brother black balled my son or grand son , for no just reason. i agree its a systems problem that needs to be worked on.


----------



## tom268 (Apr 4, 2011)

In history, one of the founders and later GM of my jurisdiction got his son blackballed. At those times, there was no second try. Once denied, always denied. This rule changed shortly after that incident.


----------



## tom268 (Apr 4, 2011)

owls84 said:


> 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.


 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 (Apr 4, 2011)

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


----------



## owls84 (Apr 4, 2011)

Could not agree more with your statement Brother. I wonder how my lodge used to have close to 2000 members in the 1920s had it not allowed most that petitioned to be raised. We are less than 10% of that now.


----------



## Beathard (Apr 4, 2011)

Agree. One of my lodges had 1200 members 20 years ago. They are down to 300. It's not due to turning away applicants or letting bad ones in. It is due to two missing generations of brothers.


----------



## wwinger (Apr 4, 2011)

owls84 said:


> ...I personally have witnessed a Past Master and his cronies vote against a candidate just because of a personally vendetta against the Worshipful Master...



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. 



owls84 said:


> ...The laws protect this behavior with the  secret ballot...



How did you learn who voted against the candidate?


----------



## wwinger (Apr 4, 2011)

Esoteric Theurgist said:


> 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





Esoteric Theurgist said:


> We sacrifice our integrity in deference to the idea that we need quantity to survive



Sadly, what you say is true.



Esoteric Theurgist said:


> Our entire investigation, recommendation, and voting process, in my opinion, is broken.



So lets get it fixed!


----------



## Blake Bowden (Apr 4, 2011)

I'd support going back to one black ball.


----------



## Beathard (Apr 4, 2011)

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).


----------



## Beathard (Apr 5, 2011)

In a conversation last night this question was asked  

Question: what is going to prevent a pissed off brother from another lodge from blackmailing every candidate in your lodge?


----------



## Benton (Apr 5, 2011)

Beathard said:


> In a conversation last night this question was asked
> 
> Question: what is going to prevent a pissed off brother from another lodge from blackmailing every candidate in your lodge?



If we had been guarding the West Gate appropriately in the first place, that shouldn't be an issue, as we shouldn't have any brothers that are so petty.

I wonder how many people have experienced this type of brother first hand? There are some grumpy bretheren up here, but none that I would believe capable of doing something like this. Are we crying wolf?


----------



## Zack (Apr 5, 2011)

Beathard said:


> In a conversation last night this question was asked
> 
> Question: what is going to prevent a pissed off brother from another lodge from blackmailing every candidate in your lodge?



If the po'd is not a member of my Lodge he doesn't have a vote in my Lodge.


----------



## tom268 (Apr 5, 2011)

I guess, you mean blackballing. Otherwise, I would say, the cops prevent him from blackmailing. *gg*

In my jurisdiction, visitors have no vote in a ballot. Only full members of the lodge in question.


----------



## Beathard (Apr 5, 2011)

I have experienced this first hand. Almost 20 years ago. The lodge is now 1/4 the size it was, 1 officer is no longer a mason, and I have a problem returning there due to a lack of harmony that still seems to linger.  But as I said that was 20 years ago. I'm not sure that it is something to worry about. 

I am just looking at whether we have any safeguards to prevent the abuses of 30 years ago. There was a reason the rule was changed. I  understand that it was a bad change, but we are not just going back to the way it was. We are going back with the baggage that slipped through the gate. There is a good possibility that we will be worse off for a long time.

BTW, I still support the change. I'm just looking for safeguards.


----------



## Bill Lins (Apr 5, 2011)

Zack said:


> If the po'd is not a member of my Lodge he doesn't have a vote in my Lodge.


 
In Texas, any Master Mason can vote on a Petition for the Degrees or a Petition for Advancement in any Texas Lodge. I suspect this is so that if a member of another Lodge knows of any reason a petitioner should be denied, he can do something about it. In my mind, this is another reason the 3 BB system should be retained. One balances the other, and vice versa. My $0.02.


----------



## jwhary (Apr 6, 2011)

If someone has a vendetta against the candidate, one black ball could do them in.  I realize that is unMasonic but personalities sometimes get in the way of good judgement.  To make a long story longer, I believe that it should be 3 black balls.


----------



## Bro.BruceBenjamin (Apr 6, 2011)

I was blackballed once because I broke up with a gentleman's daughter. I have no ill will towards the gentleman however his lodge did loose out and they have gotten several warnings about not having enough people present to open properly. When I found out my response was this, "At least have the heart to talk to me man to man."


----------



## MikeMay (Apr 6, 2011)

Bro.BruceBenjamin said:


> "At least have the heart to talk to me man to man."



No doubt...holding a grudge isn't healthy.  If I offended someone I would want them to man up and tell me, maybe it was a perception that was misunderstood, maybe I need to man up and apologize.  Either way, we should be making things right with those around us, not holding grudges...


----------



## JJones (Apr 6, 2011)

I personally dislike the requirement for 3 black balls for an unfavorable vote.  This, along with rules intended to prevent us from discussing potential candidates, leaves an impression with me that Grand Lodge is more concerned with quantity than quality when it comes to membership.

Requiring three black balls instead of one also doesn't take a lodges membership size into account.  We had 11 members (out of 40 or so) present at our stated meeting last night.  This means that if we were to have voted on a candidate then almost 1/4 of those present would have had to vote unfavorably.

I've had to set through a few initiations by now that I honestly don't feel should have been allowed to have taken place.  If I can't share my concerns beforehand and my single black ball doesn't matter then what can I even do?


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Apr 7, 2011)

Crying wolf? I don't think so. It happened, exactly as described, in my Lodge the year before I was initiated. One PM and his cronies were carrying out a personal vendetta against the sitting Master by cubing every candidate. The end result was an expulsion and some suspensions, probation for the Lodge, and no small amount of disharmony. Yes, "the system" worked but it would have been better if those men had never been made Masons in the first place.


----------



## Beathard (Apr 7, 2011)

Christopher said:


> you might have to go up to three black balls to reject in order to be fair to petitioners and ensure similar accessibility.


 
I am not sure that anyone has ever promised the general public, or even candidates, accessibility. But I do agree with a lot you are saying.

I asked G:M: Carnes about open discussion in the lodge prior to the vote. He was pretty short with me. His statement was this would ruin the peace and harmony of the lodge. If the candidate's friend is in the lodge and a discussion turns towards why the candidate should not be given a white ball, the friend could get upset. The peace and harmony of the lodge would take quite awhile to recover. This is what changed my mind on the subject.

If you look at how many candidates have been turned down over the last 30 years due to balckballs and the number of felons/masonic trials goin on now, you will see that the current process does not work. I am not sure that the proposed solution will work either. I believe that something must be done. I like a lot of your ideas, but I think we all need to consider this one carefully.

Maybe we should shut the gates with a 1-ball system, while research and discuss other systems that we can implement in the next few years to get it correct. I think, if the 1-ball system passes, we cannot drop this discussion until a better solution is found and implemented.

Just throwing another idea out there: How about a paper ballot system that contains the voters name. Only the secretary and WM has access to the votes. After an abuse of the 1-black system is identified, the WM and secretary can council with the member abusing the system. If it continues, there could be some judiciary solution - including loss of voting rights for a period to expulsion.


----------



## Ashton Lawson (Apr 7, 2011)

I have an idea, it's novel, but I think it might work. 

Let's get a box and fill it full of white balls and black cubes. Every brother gets to vote. If all the balls are white, the candidate is elected; if they're not all white he's not elected.

It's radical, but I think it will work. :001_tongue:


----------



## Beathard (Apr 7, 2011)

Amazing!  I think Esoteic Theurgist has solved it!  8)


----------



## Benton (Apr 7, 2011)

Beathard said:


> I asked G:M: Carnes about open discussion in the lodge prior to the vote. He was pretty short with me. His statement was this would ruin the peace and harmony of the lodge. If the candidate's friend is in the lodge and a discussion turns towards why the candidate should not be given a white ball, the friend could get upset. The peace and harmony of the lodge would take quite awhile to recover. This is what changed my mind on the subject.



Being aware of that potential fact, I honestly don't think it deters me at all. In other jurisdictions, if you black ball someone, you have to state why you blackballed them. How is it any different? 

My biggest problem now is that, if I'm not on the investigation committee and I don't know the man personally, I don't *really* know who we're bringing into the lodge. With our lodge, which is small and struggling a bit because of the older age of all the Masons (I bring down the average a LOT), I worry that the IC won't always guard the West Gate as well as they should, for fear of paying the bills and keeping the doors open.

So, my problem really isn't with the balloting process, but the investigation process. Our investigation form that the committee fills out, frankly, doesn't tell me hardly anything about the man. It tells me that he knows how to answer our questions with the answers we want to hear. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. A deceitful person could easily fly under the radar if he wanted to. 

I understand the GM's point. But going back to the one ball system will, in some lodges, also disrupt the harmony. How is that disruption any better than another?

I don't think there is a good solution here, but I do think there are less bad solutions, and I do think we can find one less bad than going back to the one ball system.


----------



## Tx4ever (Apr 7, 2011)

> J Jones
> Requiring three black balls instead of one also doesn't take a lodges membership size into account. We had 11 members (out of 40 or so) present at our stated meeting last night. This means that if we were to have voted on a candidate then almost 1/4 of those present would have had to vote unfavorably.


If you have 1, 2 ,or 3  *UNfavorible* investigations why would you have any problems getting 3 BB's with 11 members? If your voting *UNfavorible* without any *UNfavorible* investigations then there lies the problem and i would like to see the 1/4 precent to reject.


----------



## Christopher (Apr 7, 2011)

Benton said:


> So, my problem really isn't with the balloting process, but the investigation process.


 
I agree completely.  I really couldn't care less about one ball versus three balls.  Anyone who wants to express his grudge with one black ball will be able to find two friends to make it three.  This has been said by multiple people over and over and I have yet to hear a decent argument against it.  If you wanted to keep a few bad apples from spoiling the bunch, you're going to have to really up the amount of black balls needed, such as 1/4 of the votes or a 1/3 of the votes.

But the only reason anyone has made an issue about the number of black balls and worked so hard to keep it low, is because the investigation process is such rubbish.  This whole business about one black ball rejecting, with all the abuse and exploitation inherent in it, is solely a product of the horrid secrecy surrounding the whole investigation process.  If you were able to share incriminating information about a candidate with the rest of the lodge, you wouldn't need to be able to reject him with your vote alone.  Get rid of the secrecy, up the number of black balls required significantly, and you get rid of the abuse.  Besides, a black ball has no accountability.  If you stand up in open lodge and say something against a candidate, then that can be followed up on and investigated and either proved or discredited.  How is that less fair to anyone?  And while I agree that we never promised accessibility to anyone, we do purport to be an organization made up solely of "good men".  If we're going to be serious about that then we need to be serious about both really investigating new candidates and clamping down on abuse by current members.  Even if you can argue that switching to one black ball serves the first purpose, you can't possibly argue that it serves the second.

Ruin the peace and harmony of the lodge by having an open and honest conversation about provable facts?  With all due respect to the Grand Master, if that's true then we have some very grave problems in our Fraternity indeed.  If Masonry can unite men of every creed, nation, political opinion, etc., why on earth can't it bridge an opinion divide on a candidate?  With all this grudge-holding going about in lodges, no wonder we're having a hard time retaining members.


----------



## Tx4ever (Apr 7, 2011)

Lets talk The peace and harmony of the lodge , A brother ,top line recomends his son , grandson, friend, lets just say he would be great masons , 3 investigators give him a favoroble report, and unjustly 1 brother for what ever reason drops the BB , I would think this would greatly effect the peace and harmony,you may even lose a good brother or 2. Or the WM trys to protect justice and contuines the vote until midnight ,would this effect the peace and harmony? At least with 3 bb ,the bad apple has to  gain 2 other cronies, which semi protects the system.


----------



## JJones (Apr 7, 2011)

Tx4ever said:


> If you have 1, 2 ,or 3  *UNfavorible* investigations why would you have any problems getting 3 BB's with 11 members? If your voting *UNfavorible* without any *UNfavorible* investigations then there lies the problem and i would like to see the 1/4 precent to reject.



I think you really hit the nail on the head with that.  The investigation is the first step of the process and I think we are taking steps in the right direction to fix that.  I suppose my issue with black balls would become somewhat of a moot point if investigations were more in depth.  My grandfather once told me that investigating committees used to talk with a potential candidate's neighbors and employers as well before coming to a decision, though I'm not sure anyone really has the time or drive for anything like that now.

Requiring one black ball would still have it's merits though, as one member might know something about a candidate that other's aren't aware of and you aren't supposed to speak of new candidates.


----------



## Beathard (Apr 7, 2011)

I wonder if they are going to allow much discussion on this one at Grand Lodge. It could be fun.


----------



## Preston DuBose (Apr 8, 2011)

As much as I really want to spill the beans about some recent events in our lodge, I don't think it's appropriate to share that kind of thing in a public forum. However, I will note that due to events in the last 12 months we now have an informal policy of asking candidates to join us during meals prior to the stated meeting for a few months _before submitting a petition_. This gives more members a chance to get to know the candidate and makes us more comfortable when it comes time for a ballot. Of course it also works both ways and gives the candidate a chance to get a feel for the lodge and its members.


----------

