# One black ball?



## Mac

During a recent Grand Master's Conference, the Grand Master discussed returning to one ball being sufficient for rejection of a candidate (instead of the three currently needed).

What are your thoughts on the matter?

I personally feel that one old timer who may disagree with a candidate based on religion or color should not have the power to outright prevent a man from becoming a Mason with just his one vote.

It's one thing to say men who vote this way should never have been made Masons, but their ideals and stance on these issues were judged when they joined in the 40's and 50's, or were judged in the 60's and 70's by men who joined in that era.  Their ideas are outdated, but they unfortunately might still remain, even unknown or unspoken until it counts: the ballot.

I think rejecting with one black ball is a move in the wrong direction.


----------



## Benton

I think we're fine with the three black ball rule. One black ball is two easy to manipulate, a simple majority could cause discord in the lodge. We're at a happy medium right now, a compromise, where both extremes are unhappy with the current policy. That's usually a good place to be.


----------



## tbone1321

I am actually torn on the issue I think it should be a unanimous vote because all brothers should agree to let a man in and if there is a brother that feels that the person we are voting on is found unfit to be made a mason the other brothers should support his decision but then again a simple childhood squabble or rival businesses or other frivolous matters could stop a good man from becoming a mason. So it is hard for me to decide but I feel three is fair


----------



## JJones

I'm old school despite my young age, I voted for one black ball.

I can really see either side of the argument but even if someone gets blackballed that doesn't mean they couldn't just petition again later.


----------



## Mac

Wow, I'm genuinely surprised this is split right down the middle.  Granted n=8, but jeez.


----------



## Brent Heilman

I voted no, but in reality I am torn. I think that 3 is the way to go because you could help eliminate someone keeping someone out for a personal reason. I think that it will still happen on occasion since some people like to "talk" to others about a candidate. I also see the other side too and a part of me believes that it should be unanimous. Either way I would accept it.


----------



## MikeMay

I voted no for two reasons.  First, allowing only one allows someone to use their vote to keep people out if they so chose to use it that way.  I know we have rules/articles about it and our esteemed Brother Bill will tell us what those are...I'm just pointing out human nature as a few other brothers have done so below...the second reason is that (providing there is no campaigning going on to keep someone out) if there is something to keep a candidate out, I would prefer that 3 people vote their conscience...actually I would prefer that the investigation committee does its job and not recommends someone that shouldn't be recommended....Just sayin...

Just for the record....in our lodge, we do not use a black ball, our black ball is actually a cube, and as our WM had said last year, White Ball elects, Black Cube rejects.  (We use the cube so that if a brother cannot see well or the lights go out, we could, in theory, vote in the dark)


----------



## Mac

Brent Heilman said:


> I also see the other side too and a part of me believes that it should be unanimous. Either way I would accept it.


I'm in the same boat as you, brother.  I just think it's dangerous to allow one brother's prejudice to deny another man's entry into our noble fraternity.

As far as reapplying goes: Would you reapply a year later?  What if someone committed electioneering (which never happens) and managed to get enough cubes in the box to block the guy for 3 years?

If I petitioned to join a group and was denied for no valid reason, I would most likely write it off altogether, and perhaps justly so.  The probability of such a thing happening increases when you put the ability to reject in the hands of only one brother present.


----------



## MikeMay

...if someone gets 3 black balls/cubes 3 years in a row...then I would have to say the investigation committee failed or there was some campaigning going on...


----------



## JJones

> If I petitioned to join a group and was denied for no valid reason, I  would most likely write it off altogether, and perhaps justly so.  The  probability of such a thing happening increases when you put the ability  to reject in the hands of only one brother present.



Back when my grandfather was a young mason it was very common for people to get turned down for no 'valid reason'.  In fact, looking back at the records it seems like a lot of people who were admitted into the fraternity in our town had been blackballed the year before.  My grandfather was blackballed the year before he was admitted as well.

The mindset at the time was that if someone wanted to join for the right reasons then they'd likely apply again the next year.  If someone wanted to join just because it tickled their fancy at that time however, they'd likely move on and forget about the fraternity.

I'd like to point out also that the one black ball system was in use for a long time and it seemed to work well enough.


----------



## Mac

JJones said:


> Back when my grandfather was a young mason it was very common for people to get turned down for no 'valid reason'. In fact, looking back at the records it seems like a lot of people who were admitted into the fraternity in our town had been blackballed the year before. My grandfather was blackballed the year before he was admitted as well.
> 
> The mindset at the time was that if someone wanted to join for the right reasons then they'd likely apply again the next year. If someone wanted to join just because it tickled their fancy at that time however, they'd likely move on and forget about the fraternity.
> 
> I'd like to point out also that the one black ball system was in use for a long time and it seemed to work well enough.



So you're saying it's appropriate for a closed society to reject someone at least once under the premise of "if he wants it, he'll be back"?  As I understand it, a rejection means he can't reapply for a year.  That's a long time and a lot of lost light, if he's a genuinely deserving person.

Just because something was done for many years doesn't make it right.


----------



## JJones

You're correct brother, it doesn't make it right.

What I am saying, however, is that if someone wants to join for the right reasons they'll re-apply.  A year isn't a long time at all and, to me, it says a lot about a person who re-applies after a year instead of tossing in the towel and giving up after being denied.

I'm fine with either system though, like I said.  I think the one ball system was better though, it's problems were created by a few people, not the system itself.


----------



## Brent Heilman

I don't think that the thought of if they want it bad enough they'll be back is a good reason to vote someone down. If that had happen to me for no good reason would I be here today? No most assuredly I wouldn't be. My opinion of the Fraternity would not be favorable either. It just isn't good business to work that way. I don't think that just because it has always been done that way or if it worked then why can't it work now is an acceptable reason. Look at the conversations we have had about Prince Hall Masons. Keeping the old ways is not always the best way. If it were then we would never be able to associate with PH Masons and that Brothers would be a tragedy.


----------



## Nate Riley

Voted no.  I like the idea of requiring three to prevent personal vendettas from holding a guy back.


----------



## Observer

JJones said:


> You're correct brother, it doesn't make it right.
> 
> I think the one ball system was better though, it's problems were created by a few people, not the system itself.



If the system is so open to corruption by a few people, then there is a problem with the system.

I think the law (or its interpretation) of not discussing a candidate is at fault. If you are going to put a new roof on the lodge or new locks on the door, you can bet the discussion is going to be extensive as to what kind to buy. Why not discuss the qualifications of a potential brother. It should certainly be handled masonically and I believe an open discussion would facilitate that. It might also help some brothers to see that their actions might not be on the square.


----------



## Nate Riley

Observer said:


> If the system is so open to corruption by a few people, then there is a problem with the system.
> 
> I think the law (or its interpretation) of not discussing a candidate is at fault. If you are going to put a new roof on the lodge or new locks on the door, you can bet the discussion is going to be extensive as to what kind to buy. Why not discuss the qualifications of a potential brother. It should certainly be handled masonically and I believe an open discussion would facilitate that. It might also help some brothers to see that their actions might not be on the square.



If you have a problem with the petitioner you should voice your concerns to a member of the investigating committee.


----------



## jwhoff

No.  No man is an island.  No one man has the right to control the wishes or directions of a lodge of masons.


----------



## lopezgj

I concur with us being at a happy medium at this particular time. We will always have opportunities for improvement in our methods & processes, but for the time, I support our current process. I think we have a systematic problem and this potential change could serve as a catalyst to drive focus towards better investigations. Better investigations would demand better Masonic education. This would inherently cause a refocus on quality rather than quantity.


----------



## choppersteve03

We are still using the single method in Iowa ,i must admit i had never heard of the thrice method till it was posted here.


----------



## Jacob Johnson

I like the 3 ball/cube method. It does seem to cut out the "I don't like him" factor and the "I'm in a bad mood so I want to blackball someone" bit too.


----------



## Aleister

*Aleister*

Interesting


----------



## Michael Hatley

My personal view?  I'd have it take one vote.

But I'd make the vote public.  Make a man justify excluding another from the fraternity.  Stand up and own your vote.  If we are honest with each other, completely, then what need is there for a secret ballot style voting process.

I'm perfectly willing to be identified with my votes, now and forever.  And to vote down someone I truly and seriously thought was not fit.  To explain my reasoning.  And to own it.  I've nothing to hide nor can I be intimidated.  People who do or can puzzle me, a little.

But I understand the reasoning and know my way wouldn't stand much of a chance of being adopted.  Knowing that, the three method is the better of the two choices in my opinion.


----------



## dnewman3

I like three.   Maybe we should focus more on getting to know the person so we can "vouch" for his internal qualifications.  I personally would feel uncomfortable signing a petetion unless i knew the gentleman. 
   so does this mean we "beef" up our investigations?


----------



## jwhoff

ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.  YEAH!  I'm for it.  We're betraying the brotherhood otherwise.


----------



## Dave in Waco

Observer said:


> If the system is so open to corruption by a few people, then there is a problem with the system.
> 
> I think the law (or its interpretation) of not discussing a candidate is at fault. If you are going to put a new roof on the lodge or new locks on the door, you can bet the discussion is going to be extensive as to what kind to buy. Why not discuss the qualifications of a potential brother. It should certainly be handled masonically and I believe an open discussion would facilitate that. It might also help some brothers to see that their actions might not be on the square.


 

I agree wholeheartedly.  As pointed out, on every other thing we vote on, we have an opportunity for discussion.  So why do we not have discussion on what is perhaps the single most important thing to the Fraternity, the admission of a new candidate?  It might stop some of the backroom electioneering that is against our law.  But at least this way, the discussion would be in the open forum of the Lodgeroom where it should be.  But it would give a brother a chance to voice their concerns about the candidate that might have been missed by the investigation committee, or it could clear up other information a brother heard as rumor that would be affecting how that brother votes.  


For example, I have a very common name, David Johnson, and I know at least 5 other David Johnson's.  So what if one of the brothers who doesn't know me personally, heard a rumor or even had bad dealings with another David Johnson but by the information given doesn't know that that David Johnson and I are not the same?  Most likely he would black ball me under the false impression I am the David Johnson he had bad dealings.  But in an open discussion, he would be able to voice his concerns and my recommenders and/or the investigation committee would be able to address them and clear up his misidentification.  

Another example might be that the night of the vote, a brother comes in and knows the candidate and knows that he was not truthful on petition.  By law, all this brother can do is black ball the candidate.  But if there is discussion, he can present his knowledge to the lodge so that they can make a more informed and better ballot, thus better guarding the West Gate.  Plus if there is no discussion and the WM has 3 black balls, he knows something is afoot, and can reopen the floor for more discussion.

But I think there needs to be some discussion regardless if it is 1 or 3 balck balls.


----------



## JJones

Maybe I'm getting off topic here, but if a brother has concerns or information about a potential candidate isn't it legal to approach the investigation committee?  They could use that information in their investigation at that point.

I'm not sure how I'd feel about open discussion of candidates.  What if the candidate is the brother, son, or father, of a brother sitting in the lodge?  I doubt many people would stand up and voice their concerns if they felt doing so would cause problems.


----------



## Dave in Waco

JJones said:


> Maybe I'm getting off topic here, but if a brother has concerns or information about a potential candidate isn't it legal to approach the investigation committee? They could use that information in their investigation at that point.
> 
> I'm not sure how I'd feel about open discussion of candidates. What if the candidate is the brother, son, or father, of a brother sitting in the lodge? I doubt many people would stand up and voice their concerns if they felt doing so would cause problems.



The brother may not have time to inform the Investigation committee.  He may have been out the week the petition was read.

If the candidate were the brother, son, or father of another brother sitting in the lodge.  The members of the lodge still reserve the right to hear a brother concerned. He may have a legitimate reason for expressing why he disagrees with that candidate.  I mean that relative may not know that about the candidate themselves.  And if they did know the reason that and it hadn't been disclosed that would mean the candidate lied on his petition anyway.  But on the other side, a relative should be able to give better information.  If the objector has a personal beef with them, then that will come out and the relative would could dismiss it.  If the objector has incorrect information, the relative would be there to give the correct information, thus saving a candidate who may not have made it otherwise.  Yes it could cause a problem in the lodge if someone objected and there was a legitimate reason, such as the lying.  But the relative either didn't know about it, or was hiding it.  If they didn't know, that should change their mind about their relative.  If they were hiding it, would you really want either of those relatives in lodge knowing that the brother tried to defraud the lodge agains their obligation?


----------



## JJones

No I wouldn't but if the brother was unaware or the concerns were false it might embarrass or upset him.  I think in an ideal world we should be able to discuss these things freely but I just wonder if it's too optimistic to expect this to solve the problem with no side effects.

That being said, I certainly don't claim to have all the answers either, you might just be on to something.


----------



## Dave in Waco

That would be when the WM should step in to make sure it doesn't get out of control.  And the concern should be made in a constructive and respectful manner to begin with.  Afterall, it's supposed to be a discussion not a knife fight.  Chances are, if someone doesn't want the guy, they are still going to take the steps to see he doesn't make it in.  

But there would be some side effect even if the concern wasn't voiced, since the brother with the concern would most likely black ball the candidate anyway.  True the relative would now know how might have a problem the candidate if the candidate was black balled, but it might have also saved the candidate.  And if it were me sitting in lodge and someone I recommended had something they didn't tell me about that embrassed me when I find out from someone in open lodge, I wouldn't be too happy with my relative for making me look like a liar because he asked me to vouche that he was a good man.


----------



## Stephen

In Virginia it is a single black cube, and at our last stated a really good man was refused light in masonry.


----------



## Michael Hatley

I was thinking more about that I would talk directly with a brother affected by my doubts or questions.  If Bro. Smith's nephew was up, but I had doubts about something like I don't know, time availability or whatever.  I'd have a private word with Bro. Smith about my reservations, and allow him to either put my mind at ease or to understand why I have the reservations I do.

If I felt I could not go directly to that Brother with that sort of discussion, I'd go through the WM.

If a group of people are communicating, I have trouble seeing a contentious matter coming to a vote in the first place because of that.

Its true perhaps I'm being overly optimistic.  But in that environment enforced by public vote, it puts gravity on the side of people not voting down people for superficial reasons in my opinion.  

Outside of that sort of ideal, three, in my opinion.  For the reason above.


----------



## Huw

Hi All.

Here in England, the default rule laid down by UGLE is 3 black balls exclude.  However, each individual Lodge has the right to reduce that to 2 or to 1 by by-law if it wishes (but it can't be increased to more than 3).  Most just use the 3-ball rule.  I quite like our rule on this, giving Lodges the choice of system.

After interview, prospective Candidates are discussed by the committee, who make their recommendation to the Lodge, and usually the Lodge follows the recommendation without debate.  However, if any Brother wishes to say anything about the applicant in open Lodge, then we have no rule against it, although it's unusual to do so.  Your rule of completely prohibiting further discussion surprises me, and I think allowing discussion is advantageous for the reasons some previous posters here have already mentioned.

Black balls are very rare here.  I've never actually witnessed it in the Craft Lodge (and only once in one of the additional Orders).  We have a strong custom that if someone has an objection, then he ought to mention it to the Master or Secretary before the application gets as far as the ballot, and usually one Brother mentioning an objection is enough to halt the process.  Nevertheless, there are occasional circumstances in which it's not appropriate for an objector to say anything, or in which a proposer and seconder might stubbornly insist on going to a ballot even in the face of a known objection (which they have the right to do under our rules, although they'd certainly be advised not to insist).  Therefore the anonymous black ball remains necessary as a last resort.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## jwhoff

Just pulled in from a GLoTx warden's retreat this weekend.  This topic was discussed.  In Texas the vote must ensue though protests may have been lodged.  The protests are taken into account after WM informs both SW and JW protests have been logged.  Discussion of the candidate in open lodge is not permitted in Texas.  Nor are any comments which may be added to the investigation reports of the investigators.  If the protester is in the lodge at the time, the WM disregards his protest and counts his black ball only.  Otherwise, at the end of the vote the WM announces a protest and, if the protest brings the number to three black balls, the candidate is refused degrees for one year.  More black balls can increase the band to three years.

It is truly fascinating how various jurisdictions handle jurisprudence as well as common law masonry.  We can all learn more from such discussions.  Please keep them coming brethren.

Thanks brother Huw.


----------



## JTM

For me "one black ball" boils down to me trusting a single brother to know best what is best for this fraternity.  I'm not sure I'm ready for that at this point.  In the future, yes, but not at this moment.


----------



## Zack

JTM said:


> For me "one black ball" boils down to me trusting a single brother to know best what is best for this fraternity.  I'm not sure I'm ready for that at this point.  In the future, yes, but not at this moment.



Not saying this is true in Texas but, where I'm from you are putting what is best for the fraternity in the hands of 3 on the investigating committee, which I know from observation is very haphazard at best.  One way or the other it is putting trust in someone.


----------



## JJones

Something interested I learned last night...our DD made his annual visit and mentioned during his communication that going back to the one-ball standard may be a good possibility pretty soon.

I don't know how I feel about it anymore as I could argue for both sides.  I guess we'll cross that bridge if and when we get to it.


----------



## Mac

That's only a possibility if the brethren choose for it to be.


----------



## Benton

It would definitely have to go up for a vote at Grand Lodge. Not sure how that would end up, honestly.


----------



## Pennsyltucky

I find the comments interesting and can see the dilemma in other states.  I just read a long response from a Pennsylvania site where the Grand Master has moved them to the three black ball system.  It seems to have caused a lot of issue in the craft.  They were, I believe, using the unanimous vote in the past.  As a Senior Warden in a Kentucky Lodge I have seen the issue of voting out a candidate because member did not like his father.  We have the unanimous system here in Kentucky.  It is too easy to lose a good man due to petty differences with this system.


----------



## Wingnut

jwhoff said:


> Discussion of the candidate in open lodge is not permitted in Texas.  Nor are any comments which may be added to the investigation reports of the investigators.



To me this is the biggest problem...


----------



## Michael Hatley

*nods, for me too.  I don't know if the original idea was to ensure oratory didn't rule the lodge or what.  

To me it seems that anything that gets in the way of having an honest and frank discussion ought to have pretty tangible benefits, since it can easily lead to factions and divisions.

You just need someone in the East who will not take sides, and who will benevolently moderate, in my opinion.

But, whatever way squelches drama is best, in the end.  I'd imagine they've tried a number of approaches over the years in masonry, so I'm slow to be overly critical.


----------



## bullrack33

As a hypothetical situation, lets say that a Brother gets a ticket for speeding while driving to Lodge. During the meeting, a ballot is taken on a man who just happens to be a cop. The brother drops a black cube/ball simply because he is upset because he just received a speeding ticket.........even though the candidate didn't write the ticket. The candidate is undeserving of being refused into the Fraternity and he now has a grudge against Masonry. As a result, everyone losses.


----------



## HghDnsty

*One only*

One should be enough...period.  Trust in a brothers judgement, unwaivering.  In many of the comments above the unaware are jumping to conclusions.


----------



## Mac

HghDnsty said:
			
		

> One should be enough...period.  Trust in a brothers judgement, unwaivering.  In many of the comments above the unaware are jumping to conclusions.



Sounds nice in principle, but doesn't work in the real world.


----------



## Brent Heilman

*Re: One only*



HghDnsty said:


> One should be enough...period.  Trust in a brothers judgement, unwaivering.  In many of the comments above the unaware are jumping to conclusions.



When dealing with people, Brothers or not, never underestimate a person's emotions. Someone's emotions one day, like the example of Bro. Bullrack, may be not always be just and true. I do not believe we are jumping to conclusions that are wrong. I just feel that all the power left to an individual sometimes is not the best way to go about things. While we should vote with the knowledge given by an investigation committee not all people will follow that guide and may vote based on a prejudice or for some reason that would not normally sway a vote. People are unpredictable and will always be that way and we cannot change that. There will always be some people that vote against someone because of an old prejudice toward his family or something. The same reason we have 3 branches of the Federal Government is great reason to have the 3-ball rule, checks and balances.


----------



## Robert G

One black ball was used to keep minorities out of the lodge by brothers who did not take the idea of the universality of freemasonry too seriously, or forgot that it's a man's inner qualities that are important. It's necessary, if we wish to have more diversity in our lodges, to *not* return to the one black ball rule.


----------



## choppersteve03

here in iowa its been one black ball.


----------



## Mac

I hope that reason prevails and the Rule of Three remains after this annual communication.  The discussion and votes in this thread give me hope.


----------



## sands67

In NL Canada it is unanimous. It is not too often one gets blackballed, but it has happened. I feel we must trust our brothers to do the right thing when voting on a candidate. When I was voted on there were two other brothers that were business rivals already members. They could have blackballed me, but never. Trust in the craft.


----------



## Brother Mark

I believe the three black ball rule is the way to go. I have heard that some old timers in my lodge always put a blackball in the ballot box, no matter what. I personally think that allowing 1 person to have that kind of control is unnecessary


----------



## Squire Bentley

Masonic Ballot Reform by Wor. Bro. Frederic L. Milliken


----------



## BryanMaloney

Just wondering, why does this thread keep getting marked as "new" without any new content?


----------



## Benton

Whenever someone votes in a poll, the thread is bumped to the top, even without a new post.


----------



## Cigarzan

I think 3 is the way to go.


----------



## knightnblue

I'm really surprised at the reactions from all, but I have to admit that personal vendettas might arise with only one black cube/ball so, with that in mind I vote 3.

Rick Flores MM Eagle Pass #626


----------



## HKTidwell

Perhaps it is just me but three black balls is just as easy to get as one black ball.  One thing I've learned from some old times is you can say a tremendous amount without ever saying how you are going to vote or asking somebody to vote a specific way.  The WM has the option to ballot as many times as necessary, as long as he does so before asking about the results.  Having said that you cannot leave when balloting is in process so if the WM knows of no good reason he can keep an entire lodge there all night if need be.  If one brother drops a black ball it should be good enough in my opinion.  Yes you could get a bad apple who drops black balls for his own gratification but if we do not have enough trust within our walls on Brothers doing the right things then perhaps that lodge needs to die by black balling new members.  The four cardinal virtues should lead Brothers to make wise decisions and if a lodge is not educating enough for their members to be "Masons" then why should I care if their lodge fades away because of a lack of members.  The quality will leave and find a different lodge to attend.

I guess to me it all goes back to the basis for Masonry in my opinion.  If I can't trust my Brothers then what is the point.


----------



## Colby K

bullrack33 said:


> As a hypothetical situation, lets say that a Brother gets a ticket for speeding while driving to Lodge. During the meeting, a ballot is taken on a man who just happens to be a cop. The brother drops a black cube/ball simply because he is upset because he just received a speeding ticket.........even though the candidate didn't write the ticket. The candidate is undeserving of being refused into the Fraternity and he now has a grudge against Masonry. As a result, everyone losses.



In my opinion acting this way is against what masonry is.  A good mason would be able to look past the fact that the candidate was cop and see him for the man that he was, not only his occupation.  I realize that this would only be true in a perfect world, but still, we should all strive to be able to do this.

Here in Italy we use the single black cube.  If anything we under use the power to deny somebody with a single vote because we know how serious one black cube can be.  We understand the weight of vote and I have not seen it abused once.  For this reason I think the single black ball works well.


----------



## Spring TX MM

Mac said:


> I personally feel that one old timer who may disagree with a candidate based on religion or color should not have the power to outright prevent a man from becoming a Mason with just his one vote.



I feel its far more common than we think where a Brother may not vote Masonically and might cast a vote based on an unmasonic prejudice or grudge. Any PM or Warden ever see a black ball or cube in every single ballot box regardless of who or what was being voted on??!!??!! No answer needed to that. Its more of a statement than anything.

I too see the other side of the argument and in a perfect world, one would suffice. The problem is that its not a perfect world so 3 is a better option to protect against things as in what I stated above although its not even 100%. The rest we rely on faith that the Brothers will make the right decisions, Masonically speaking. 

S&F
Kyle


----------



## Michael Hatley

I'll put it another way too.  I'd be slow to blackball a candidate.  It is just in my nature.  I'm a direct sort of person verbally, most people pretty well know how I feel on any given issue.  But I'm slow to condemn a man who says they want to improve themselves.

I'd feel more inclined to guard the west gate decisively if I knew that I was not the sole decider of a man's fate.  It allows my consience to rest easier. 

So I think there is an argument to be made for three black balls from both directions really.


----------



## SeeKer.mm

I voted One black ball.  First of all, it's how we do it here in CT.  Second, from what I have been taught so far, it is our right as Master Masons, to disallow membership into this great fraternity.  If I know a man to be dishonorable, or know that his membership would be of detriment to the lodge, I may be the ONLY one who knows of this man's dishonorable character and it would be my duty to protect the Craft...if we needed three black balls to exclude the man from the fraternity and no one else knew of this man's poor conduct, then my vote to NOT let him in wouldn't matter and a dishonorable man would be let in....I understand the argument of childhood squabbles or the example of the man getting the ticket, however, I MUST assume that as Masons my Brothers at large would NOT act in a manner contrary to the obligations we took.  Who am I to think otherwise without just cause or first hand knowledge? I respect the character and honor of my Brothers and without them giving me a reason to do otherwise, I will trust their decisions and expect them to act as true Master Masons.


----------



## Plustax

My question is ..... Is the GLoT Investigations Manual just a guide OR is it something the MUST be followed.  We all have our own opinions about it, but what is the GLoT ruling on the Manual?  I and others are giving Investigations workshops and we use the GLoT manual, but some get in to a play with "symantics" in that it is just a guide and nothing more than that. Some say it has the GLoT Seal on it and should be followed. If so, then why is there not a mandate sent to all Texas Lodges that the Manual must be followed?  This is sometimes difficult and can be somewhat confusing when trying to conduct workshops. Too many "ol' timers" saying "this is the way to do it and way it should be done". Of course sometimes that's the way it is with some as they resist to change and I accept that, but again I'm trying to see if there is a definite rules to go by in Texas.


----------



## Brother_Steve

I am torn on the subject.

As a prospective candidate I was very nervous about being balloted on. One black ball rejects in my jurisdiction.

However after becoming a MM, I feel that west door should be guarded with the one black ball rule.

I have a question on masonic conduct...

I miss several meetings where someone's petition is read in open lodge and I haven't paid attention to the trestleboard. Now I come to lodge and the IC is reporting back on Mr. X. His name rings a bell and I know him to be a manipulator and pathological liar. He bamboozled the IC and is now just a vote away from being elected. I can't tell anyone about him, can I? I can however throw a cube and prevent him from joining however in a 3 cube state, he would get in.

The sword cuts both ways. Masonry will eventually outgrow the racism it has within its members and time will heal our fraternity. The question is, do we want to heal it with time or endanger it with rash decision making now? Do we allow potential members be cast aside for a year or do we resort to a process that may leave the door open for less qualified people to come in?


----------



## Bill Rose

I was black balled the year before gaining admission.  There was about a two year period where those of us that were of the same profession were black balled.  The year we had to wait to petition again was worth it however... We visited the Brethren often and either the one that didn't want us in changed his mind or wasn't present for the vote.  I hope that he was present and changed his mind after finding me and the others well qualified.....Because of the circumstance of the three of us being black balled in a matter of 5 or 6 months of each other it was disheartening for me... When the change was made from 1 to 3 black balls it was a relief to me because I hated to see others fall victim of one person having such control... I also agree with others that a well done investigation is very important.


----------



## dfreybur

Brother_Steve said:


> I have a question on masonic conduct...
> 
> I miss several meetings where someone's petition is read in open lodge and I haven't paid attention to the trestleboard. Now I come to lodge and the IC is reporting back on Mr. X. His name rings a bell and I know him to be a manipulator and pathological liar. He bamboozled the IC and is now just a vote away from being elected. I can't tell anyone about him, can I? I can however throw a cube and prevent him from joining however in a 3 cube state, he would get in.



That's exactly why one cube is supposed to be enough.  He may be in a position of authority so it has to be kept secret.

Are are more points to block, though.  In some jurisdictions there's a question if there are any objections before conferring a degree.  I suspect in almost all jurisdictions a confidential objection can be lodged in advance.  My example is an EA who hid his heavy drinking from his friends before his initiation.  If he stops drinking or even just cuts way back I'm okay with him advancing, but the fact that he kept it hidden led me to putting an objection in his file.  It should have been covered by the investigating committee but over a dozen members were his friends where he worked.



> The sword cuts both ways. Masonry will eventually outgrow the racism it has within its members and time will heal our fraternity. The question is, do we want to heal it with time or endanger it with rash decision making now? Do we allow potential members be cast aside for a year or do we resort to a process that may leave the door open for less qualified people to come in?



One insistent Brother can kill a lodge and it doesn't even have to be about race.  We are all mortal and whatever issues we have will eventually die with us.


----------



## Bill Lins

Plustax said:


> My question is ..... Is the GLoT Investigations Manual just a guide OR is it something the MUST be followed.


As there is no reference to it in the Laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas nor is there a Grand Master's Decision referencing it, I can only conclude that it is intended to be a guide and nothing more.


----------



## RedTemplar

Regardless of which method we use at the ballot box, we need to make sure the West Gate is securely guarded. We should be able to trust a Mason with our families.  I have sat in lodge with men that I would not trust being alone with my dog. I have been taught that it is better to turn away 100 good men than to accept 1 who is unworthy. Being accepted into Freemasonry is not a right but a privilege. If we don't maintain high standards among ourselves and pass them on to those we admit, Freemasonry will not die from a lack of membership but from the rot that is within.


----------



## Plustax

I believe that because there is no true directive on conducting investigations in Texas, then the confusion (for some), own interpretations, methods will continue which in my opinion is still not moving us forward TOGETHER when it comes to masonic investigations. It will continue to be ..... "I've always done it like this"... or "this is the way I was told/taught".... or "it doesn't make sense so I just do it my own way despite what others want".   Meanwhile as I continue researching on this I continue to hear stories from many brethren saying that right after making MM they were put on a investigation committee not knowing anything, but just tagging along and following everyone else's lead & later signing off on the petition.  Again... no directive stating that a "newbie" MM could go along with the others to see how a investigation is conducted or even attend some type of training.  Then we're trying something in this area to teach methods and since there is no true directive... it's going to take some time to sort out.


----------



## scw538

I will admit I am not a fan of the one black ball but it is law in MS.   My grandfather was blackballed 2-3 times not sure which. I was told my by my father . I'm sure it was due to his status in the community.  But as you can see he waited six months and tried again and eventually was accepted.  He went o. To become a Shriner and was active and deeply loved the craft.  Fast forward 60 years my younger brother was blackballed on the first time.  Once again b/c you are not allowed to ask but later found out the reason. An elder brother got him confused with another person in the community with an entirely last name. Luckily I convinced my brother to try again and he is a proud MM that works hard in the craft.  So three to me would be great.  


My Freemasonry


----------



## rebis

I vote for the one black ball system.
It is likely that the brother that feels so passionate about a candidate as to block him, might know something about the candidate that
The investigative committee might not have been able to assertain. 

In my view the most important thing is harmony amongst the brothers and the lodge.

Let us recall the injunction given to us in a preceding degree.



My Freemasonry


----------



## scw538

Rebis if you like the one black ball I fully respect that.  But don't you feel the one that cast the black ball should disclose his reason to the brethren.  In MS it is forbidden to ask who cast or why.  


My Freemasonry


----------



## rebis

I can see where the three ball thing might make sense.

Our lodge for example is in a small town and there are no more than ten brothers that attend regularly. In our case the three ball system would not make sense.

In a bigger city lodge with a whole lot more members, three balls would be much more appropriate.

Thoughts?


My Freemasonry


----------



## dfreybur

scw538 said:


> In MS it is forbidden to ask who cast or why.



Absolute secrecy of the ballot is a landmark whether it is in the list of any one GL or not so it should be forbidden in every regular jurisdiction.


----------



## FlBrother324

Has anyone been present at a vote when every black cube was cast that was in the ballot box? 
I was present, when the last Brother to vote asked if there were any more black cubes? He cast his vote with what was available. Prior to the vote, several Brothers addressed the Craft with important evidence of the individuals willful omission of facts concerning his trustworthiness as a potential Brother at that Lodge. My point being. that a Brother has a duty to inform the Craft as to the reputation of an individual they have knowledge of prior to a vote. If they weren't able to because of absence or other extenuating circumstances which kept them from doing so during the normal petition and investigation process, then they still can prior to the beginning of the balloting. The Craft has a right to decide how to cast their ballot with all pertinent information available if possible.  Thereby guarding the West Gate, from those unworthy of our Fraternity's Greatest HONOR. There are individuals that could sell ice to Eskimos during a Blizzard, and make them feel like they did them a favor for doing it! Very good at hiding the real person to all concerned. Any Brother with valid information can say something in open Lodge prior to a vote happening. He just needs to ask the WM permission to address the Craft before hand.

Our jurisdiction requires two Black cubes to reject. If there are 2 in the first Ballot, they are done, or 1 black cube in 2 consecutive votes. They will then need to repetition after  6 months.


----------



## JJones

I was at a meeting where they had to take the cubes out of the EoS box so there was enough cubes for everyone to vote with.  It was interesting to say the least.

I feel if the investigation committee does their job then we can keep certain types out.


----------



## Bill Lins

Actually, in Texas there only needs to be 5 black balls/cubes in the box- more than 5 doesn't matter anyway. And yes, I've been present when we ran out of black balls/cubes.


----------



## scribe1384pm

Bro lins, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on the number of black balls or cubes to be placed into the ballot box. 5 is certainly not enough for all the members usually present at a stated meeting to vote should they be inclined to to vote with a black ball or cube. Glot laws state that there be ample number of both. To me ample number means if there are let's say 20 members present at least 20 of each color. I will agree any amount over 5 black cubes is overkill, but it would be embarrassing to me to attempt to vote and there not be a marble  to be able to vote my conscience. When I was secretary not long ago, if I even thought there would be a unfavorable ballot I made sure there were "ample" marbles of both colors. Art. 223' necessary paraphernalia, #11.


My Freemasonry


----------



## dfreybur

scribe1384pm said:


> 5 is certainly not enough for all the members usually present at a stated meeting to vote should they be inclined to to vote with a black ball or cube.



If I'm at the ballot box and it's out of cubes I'll know on the spot exactly what's up.  If the box is out of cubes there are going to be more than enough to determine the outcome.  If I intended to drop a cube I'll know there's no need so I'll just stir them around.  If you listen carefully you can hear that certain brothers in certain lodges tend to drop neither - I could hear that happen by years as SD standing guard over the ballot facing away but with the sound in my ears as the brethren voted.  Some number of brothers always had the clunk noise of a drop others just the noise of stirring the balls and cubes.

If the committee is going to make a negative recommendation one of my jurisdictions let's the WM offer the candidate his petition form back.  I experienced that on one of the committees I served on.  Unexpectedly to the petitioner his wife objected.  That's only the nickel summary of the part that applies here - We would have had to give a negative recommendation and our jurisdiction allowed us to return his petition to him.


----------



## scribe1384pm

Doug, that is all well and good but in Texas all members of the lodge in which the vote is taking place must vote if present. Not pretend to vote.


----------



## dfreybur

scribe1384pm said:


> Doug, that is all well and good but in Texas all members of the lodge in which the vote is taking place must vote if present. Not pretend to vote.



I have listened and the ballots I've been to in Texas there has been a clunk for every member balloting.

But consider - The secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct as a landmark.  No member my disclose his vote.  If all of the type you wish to use are used up, which do you do?  You'll know by the remaining type how the vote went before you go to the ballot.  You can't announce what type they are because that's revealing your vote.  It's a technicality you'd have to work out in your own mind on the spot.  it's an interesting situation to be in.


----------



## scribe1384pm

You should not hear a "clunk". The ballot boxes in Texas are supposed to be heavily padded, which I assume is to prevent disclosing in any way how an individual may have cast his ballot. I'm not trying to be cute or catty, but I would suggest you purchase a copy of the GLOT Laws. I'm sure the secretary of your new lodge in San Antonio would be glad to order one for you. Or if you go to Grand Lodge in December I'm sure you can get one there. From it you can tell the slight differences from your other Grand jurisdictions and your new Grand lodge. Good luck in your travels Brother.


----------



## JJones

dfreybur said:


> I have listened and the ballots I've been to in Texas there has been a clunk for every member balloting.
> 
> But consider - The secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct as a landmark.  No member my disclose his vote.  If all of the type you wish to use are used up, which do you do?  You'll know by the remaining type how the vote went before you go to the ballot.  You can't announce what type they are because that's revealing your vote.  It's a technicality you'd have to work out in your own mind on the spot.  it's an interesting situation to be in.



I agree that it's tricky and I've wondered what I'd do if I were in the same position.  I know I wouldn't vote if I couldn't vote my conscious, even if my vote wouldn't make a difference.


----------



## FlBrother324

My Brothers, 
It is the responsibility of the WM to validate the total number of votes in the ballot box, as well as the outcome of the vote that corresponds to Brothers voting. If the numbers don't match, the vote is invalid and must be redone. No voting Brother present may abstain from voting.


----------



## mrm113

i completely agree...

S &F Yours,
Marvin E. Williams Jr. 


Sent From My Freemasonry Mobile App


----------



## crowens783

I am with Michael Hatley, 

   I do not see the need to even have the Ball/Cube. Why not talk about as we do with everything else?

I have no problem letting the brothers know I feel he should be let in or not.


----------



## JJones

crowens783 said:


> I am with Michael Hatley,
> 
> I do not see the need to even have the Ball/Cube. Why not talk about as we do with everything else?
> 
> I have no problem letting the brothers know I feel he should be let in or not.



I'm torn with this.

What if the petitioner is another brother's buddy?  You may not feel he'd make a good mason (and it may be very justified) but if that brother overheard it could cause a rift or other problems.  What if it's the same situation but instead of being his buddy it's his son? 

I feel it's smart to be able to discuss things but I also see how it could cause drama.  I think the law takes a 'better safe than sorry' approach to this.


----------



## Brother JC

crowens783 said:


> I am with Michael Hatley, I do not see the need to even have the Ball/Cube. Why not talk about as we do with everything else?
> I have no problem letting the brothers know I feel he should be let in or not.


In my lodges, more men are told no before the ballot than after, because we DO talk about it. All it takes is one member (usually on the Investigation Committee) to have an objection.


----------



## crono782

Yah, there is actually a purpose for secret ballot. Some may feel that they don't have a problem with their ballot being known, but others may not want theirs known.


----------



## Brother JC

Exactly. If it goes to ballot, it must remain secret, but prior to that all petitions should be discussed by the members of the lodge, and anyone who feels they might have reason to blackball someone should say so.


----------



## crowens783

You have a valid point JJones, I'm sure it could cause some issues and it very well could be my son one day. On the other hand this fraternity is not for "look at me I am a mason" nor would I ever let anyone that is like that in, son or not. If my son is not worthy of this fraternity then he should not be let in because he is my son. If someone is not worthy than he will not get in if with in my power to prevent it. Do I think that one man should be able to determine another's future in the lodge, no. If I am to recommend a man to be a mason and another brother knows something I do not, I feel he is obligated to let me know what kind of man he is. I am sure that there are people out there would not be just as you have stated and I agree with you on the GL taking it better safe than sorry. This is just my opinion and how I feel about the situation. I hope this is not taken the wrong way cause I mean no harm in what I say or how I have said it.


----------



## Brother_Steve

crowens783 said:


> You have a valid point JJones, I'm sure it could cause some issues and it very well could be my son one day. On the other hand this fraternity is not for "look at me I am a mason" nor would I ever let anyone that is like that in, son or not. If my son is not worthy of this fraternity then he should not be let in because he is my son. If someone is not worthy than he will not get in if with in my power to prevent it. Do I think that one man should be able to determine another's future in the lodge, no. If I am to recommend a man to be a mason and another brother knows something I do not, I feel he is obligated to let me know what kind of man he is. I am sure that there are people out there would not be just as you have stated and I agree with you on the GL taking it better safe than sorry. This is just my opinion and how I feel about the situation. I hope this is not taken the wrong way cause I mean no harm in what I say or how I have said it.


I think the issue with this is that we are not allowed to sway a vote. I don't think I am allowed to converse about a candidate with another mason. My vote would be known by another in a round about way if I did say so and so is not fit for the fraternity. IE "hey, john smith is actually a pathological liar. I went to college with him and he used to cheat on every exam he could and lie to your face about it."    I personally feel the way we vote is antiquated.  300 years ago up until the advent of accessible transportation we all knew each other whereas today the candidate could be living on the same street as you or the next two towns over. This is especially true in lodges located in more urbanized townships. We rely solely on the report of the investigation committee for our vote. Favorable or unfavorable.  Granted, like in Masonry, there are exceptions to the rules so are there exceptions to my synopsis above.  If someone is poison in a lodge at the time of a vote, then you can assume he has company. One or Three may not make a difference. We can all say that, "if my friend had been in a three black ball state he would have got in."  The vote is secret. There could have been 4 black balls. There could have been only two black balls. We will never know...


----------



## crowens783

Very true, so how are we to make sure that only true worthy good man gets in. I am still young to the fraternity and learning myself. Is it truly wrong to say something when you know someone is not worthy?


Sent From My Freemasonry Mobile App


----------



## Brother_Steve

crowens783 said:


> Very true, so how are we to make sure that only true worthy good man gets in. I am still young to the fraternity and learning myself. Is it truly wrong to say something when you know someone is not worthy?
> 
> 
> Sent From My Freemasonry Mobile App


I have only been involved in one ballot since being raised. I was told in a masonic class that it is not a Mason's place to discuss a vote either before or after a ballot. You *might* be able to approach the WM in private but that might vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

I want to believe we let all good men through the door. It is those that have lost their "light" when it comes to our working tools that cause issues within the lodge. Their masonic career did not go as they planned it or something else happened that caused a rift in the lodge. The ones that recognize this stay away for a while to not disrupt the harmony of the lodge. Other members might use the ballot as a means of protesting a sitting Master.

"You don't do what I want? Fine, you're not going to get to initiate anyone in your year as Master."

 This could mean no degree work if there are not already any EA's or FC's waiting to move up.

IF the worshipful master sees issues within the lodge he may ask so and so to stay home the night of the ballot though. I dont have our constitution handy to see if a WM can legally keep a member of the lodge from attending a stated communication so that option might be out unless a PM can "persuade" someone to miss a voting night.


----------



## dfreybur

Brother_Steve said:


> I have only been involved in one ballot since being raised. I was told in a masonic class that it is not a Mason's place to discuss a vote either before or after a ballot. You *might* be able to approach the WM in private but that might vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.



It is a landmark that the ballot is absolutely secret.  It should be a chargeable offense to ask what any other brother voted or to tell what you voted.

In the time between the committee's report and the degree, one of my jurisdictions allows a private objection to be filed with the WM (CA).  Another of my jurisdictions does not allow that to happen so only the ballot is allowed for objections (IL).  This is definitely a detail that varies jurisdiction to jurisdiction.



> Their masonic career did not go as they planned it or something else happened that caused a rift in the lodge ... "You don't do what I want? Fine, you're not going to get to initiate anyone in your year as Master."



It is possible for one disgruntled brother to destroy his lodge.  This is a necessary side effect of the combination of only needing one black cube to reject plus a ballot that is absolutely secret.  It has happened across the span of time.  It is also possible to handle the issue in other ways if specific other brothers put the life of their lodge above their own feelings.



> IF the worshipful master sees issues within the lodge he may ask so and so to stay home the night of the ballot though. I dont have our constitution handy to see if a WM can legally keep a member of the lodge from attending a stated communication so that option might be out unless a PM can "persuade" someone to miss a voting night.



He can ask, but the right to attend one's own lodge is a landmark.  No member in good standing may be excluded from a lodge meeting he presents himself to.  This is one of the points of only holding ballots on Stated meetings.  All members know the date of all Stated meetings because the date is listed in the by-laws that all members have signed.  Written notice is required to change the date, time or place of a Stated meeting in order that every member who chooses to attend at least in theory knows exactly when and where to show up.  This is why it's not allowed in any jurisdiction (or should not be) to ballot at any other type of meeting.


----------



## JJones

I wouldn't say it's antiquated, in fact I think you mentioned a key aspect that tends to get overlooked...and that's the investigation committee.  If they do their job thoroughly then this conversation wouldn't be necessary anyhow IMO.  Unfortunately in many lodges investigations are treated more as a formality than a necessity.

Perhaps if you think a petitioner is a bad fit for the lodge it'd be appropriate to bring your concerns to the investigation committee during the investigation phase?  After all, this is the phase in the application process where the brethren are supposed to learn as much as they can about the petitioner.


----------



## Bill Lins

JJones said:


> Perhaps if you think a petitioner is a bad fit for the lodge it'd be appropriate to bring your concerns to the investigation committee during the investigation phase?  After all, this is the phase in the application process where the brethren are supposed to learn as much as they can about the petitioner.


I believe that, if a Brother possesses knowledge, good OR bad, about a petitioner, he has the DUTY to advise the investigating committee accordingly.


----------



## Chamotox

In my lodge in Hungary, for the full rejection 3 black balls needed, and if there are two black balls in the ballot box the Master of the lodge calls upon the brother anonymously to talk to him in 5 days privately, and declares the balloting grey. If the Master of the Lodge finds the reason of the black ball firm and valid he declares the balloting black and rejects the candidate, if he does not or the voter doesn't show up, he declares it white and the lodge accepts the candidate. I think it is a right middle way. 


Sent From My Freemasonry Mobile App


----------



## jjjjjggggg

As a petitioner I realize my opinion amounts to squat... But the "one is enough" doesn't seem fair, as I have encountered some folks who would black ball somebody purely on race... and if a few of my black friends approached me about petitioning I'd be awfully embarrassed and disappointed if they would not be accepted. Part of the reason I want to be a mason is because I thought they were suppose to be the champions of equality and reason.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## tldubb

Our Grand Lodge changed it to from one to three.

Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## dfreybur

jamie.guinn said:


> ... But the "one is enough" doesn't seem fair ...



It's not supposed to be fair.  One brother is supposed to be able to exclude any candidate with or without valid reasons and that's not fair.  In fact it does occasionally happen that brothers exclude candidates for improper reasons.  It doesn't have to be about prejudice.  A brother might reject because he's doing a veto on the current line.  A brother might hold pique against his entire lodge and reject until something major changes in it (or in him).  Or the reason might be valid but kept private because the secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct.

We are told to be very careful about the men who we recommend and the possibility of a brother using the ballot for un-Masonic reasons is one of the reasons we are told to be careful.

When a brother rejects a candidate for improper reasons it reflects on all of us more than it does on that one candidate.  A man rejected without knowing why can be expected to hold a low opinion of us for the rest of his life.

Whether it makes sense to change the rules to require more than one rejection, I can't judge that for other jurisdictions.  To me the anonymous ballot is a landmark so the problem should be solved some other way.

As far as prejudice goes, it's our internal problem.  Our principles teach us to get past them but not all brothers are able to bring themselves to do so.  Our principles also teach that we are to have harmony in our assemblies but not all brothers are able to set their prejudices aside to be able to do so.  Our landmarks specifically forbid the discussion of sectarian religion and partisan politics because those are not visible attributes of a man so they can be kept secret.  Masonry led the world on those types of prejudice because secrecy worked for them.  But visible attributes?  That's our internal problem.

If I saw a rejection based on what I believed was racial prejudice I would not darken the door of that lodge again and I would demit to another lodge were I a member.  But living in a racially integrated neighborhood of "Military City, USA" I have the luxury of many lodges to chose among and the certainty that I have lodges to chose among.  If work required me to move to a region where I couldn't avoid the issue I'd likely start checking about American Legion posts for the moment as well as checking out job boards for another relocation.  I am tolerant of tolerance and intolerant of intolerance.


----------



## jjjjjggggg

Dfreybur,

Wonderful explanation, makes sense... and helps calm my fears... Very excited about my petition, but didn't want to be a part of a "good ol boys club" where racism, though unspoken, would still be the norm. 

I have some further concerns but would probably be better discussed privately.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Mr.Gixxer

One down,  two to go. I've located men from 3 of the mainstream lodges near me. The first politically told  me if petitioned I wouldn't be voted on favourably.  But He personally thinks its time.  The other lodge meeting nights was missed because of the snow here in Alabama this week.  So ill try to visit the others on their next meeting night before they get started.  Yes I'm black.  But raised to not judge by color.  My military career has given me friends of different races.

Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## jjjjjggggg

Good luck gixxer... Sad to hear it, it is about time!!! Hope it happens for you... And one day call you brother!


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

Mr.Gixxer said:


> One down,  two to go. I've located men from 3 of the mainstream lodges near me. The first politically told  me if petitioned I wouldn't be voted on favourably.  But He personally thinks its time.  The other lodge meeting nights was missed because of the snow here in Alabama this week.  So ill try to visit the others on their next meeting night before they get started.  Yes I'm black.  But raised to not judge by color.  My military career has given me friends of different races.


I am ashamed to be even remotely associated with the men in those Lodges who would cube a man because of the color of his skin. Yes, I said ashamed.


----------



## hidonmesahj

Sir, I see your posts all the time. I'm willing to bet you are a good man & a good mason. After almost 2 years of research,  I have recently petitioned.  In fact, I'm do at the lodge this Tuesday to drop off fees & start the process. However, as a student of law, and therefore of reason, I must respectfully disagree. I think any democratic process hinging on one vote alone ceases to be that form of direct democracy that I think we all seek. Although, I do understand being a guardian of tradition.


----------



## Brother JC

By the nature of the word "unanimous" we are bound by a single vote. And besides, "we've always done it that way."


----------



## dfreybur

hidonmesahj said:


> Sir, I see your posts all the time. I'm willing to bet you are a good man & a good mason. After almost 2 years of research,  I have recently petitioned.  In fact, I'm do at the lodge this Tuesday to drop off fees & start the process. However, as a student of law, and therefore of reason, I must respectfully disagree. I think any democratic process hinging on one vote alone ceases to be that form of direct democracy that I think we all seek. Although, I do understand being a guardian of tradition.



Like the US and all other republics, Masonry is not of the direct subspecies of democracies.  We are one of the republic subspecies of democracies.  Or maybe more than one of those types.

The US is a federated republic and a hybrid form of that.  A republic whose members are both citizens and states which are themselves federated republics.  Lodge as to grand lodge is a bit more like county to state than like state to country, so whether our system counts as a federated type republic I'm not sure.  The United Grand Lodge of England has a structure that is both looser and more hierarchical than our system so there isn't a requirement that our system be how grand lodges are run.

The unanimous ballot has an assortment of traditional and legal reasons.  It may help keep us private enough to be not subject to those anti-discrimination rules that required the Girl Scouts cookie selling empire to drop requirements.  You will note that the Boy Scouts have been a popcorn selling empire in recent years and sure enough their requirements are beginning to drop.

It's a conundrum that we discriminate against atheists yet we lead the world in freedom of religion topics.  By having limits we do not pass we are more the able to excel within those limits.


----------



## hidonmesahj

Thank you. Very informative.


----------



## Mr.Gixxer

Update, still in search of a lodge that will admit me.  Weird reasoning from some,  we've never had a black or we aren't Gate City #2 in Atlanta,  they initiated, passed and raised a black man and it caused quite a stir.  Interesting articles on the issue, but he is doing quite well looking at their website.  Few have said its too soon.  Others if I were to be raised I'd be a man with out a country in the south.  Some have claimed to belong to a mixed church.  Yet won't sit in lodge with some one based on  skin color.  Questioned as to why not join Prince hall, I've always been color blind. If that's my only option so be it. And yes  Its their right not to admit blacks, but is it Masonic?  My job allows me to visit and train in other states and countries some don't recognize Prince hall.  Why not be welcomed to visit where ever I may travel? The 3rd lodge is split 50/50 but apparently it was rumored of my pursuit to join and quite a few members showed up for the next few meetings.  But I've yet to submit a petition so not sure if it was a vote or general census. I was told to exercise patients and I'm doing so. I have really enjoyed this site and the great support of two brothers, whom ill forever be indebted to for their guidance.  Prayerfully one day I can become family. 

Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Warrior1256

JJones said:


> I'm old school despite my young age, I voted for one black ball.
> 
> I can really see either side of the argument but even if someone gets blackballed that doesn't mean they couldn't just petition again later.


I agree. We have the one ball system in Kentucky and it has, and still does, work just fine.


----------



## Pete Ramboldt

In Wisconsin, 1 black cube rejects. I think this should be the way to go. However, the brother who casts the cube has 48 hours to contact the Master with his reason for his vote. If the Master finds his reason not valid he can override it, and at the next meeting the can state that the candidate has been elected to receive the degrees. If there is a valid reason the vote stands.


----------



## Warrior1256

Pete Ramboldt said:


> In Wisconsin, 1 black cube rejects. I think this should be the way to go. However, the brother who casts the cube has 48 hours to contact the Master with his reason for his vote. If the Master finds his reason not valid he can override it, and at the next meeting the can state that the candidate has been elected to receive the degrees. If there is a valid reason the vote stands.


In Kentucky we do not have this option. The Master can not ask any brother how he voted. Furthermore, no Mason is allowed to tell anyone how he voted.


----------



## dfreybur

Asking a brother how or why he balloted goes against the landmarks.  Given if there's a law to do that in some jurisdiction, it's still invalid.  The landmarks beat any constitution, bylaw or edict.


----------



## admarcus1

dfreybur said:


> Asking a brother how or why he balloted goes against the landmarks.  Given if there's a law to do that in some jurisdiction, it's still invalid.  The landmarks beat any constitution, bylaw or edict.



Can you point me to the landmark?  I've seen them enumerated differently in different places, so I'm curious about it. I'm also curious about how precise and detailed the language is. I'm my jurisdiction, you cannot ask, but I don't know the source.


----------



## Zack

dfreybur said:


> Asking a brother how or why he balloted goes against the landmarks.  Given if there's a law to do that in some jurisdiction, it's still invalid.  The landmarks beat any constitution, bylaw or edict.


 
Which landmark and which jurisdiction(s).


----------



## masson

We would absolutely be glad to have you in our lodge.. Jerusalem 31 Bowmanville Ontario Canada. ;-)


----------



## MarkR

Pete Ramboldt said:


> In Wisconsin, 1 black cube rejects. I think this should be the way to go. However, the brother who casts the cube has 48 hours to contact the Master with his reason for his vote. If the Master finds his reason not valid he can override it, and at the next meeting the can state that the candidate has been elected to receive the degrees. If there is a valid reason the vote stands.


So then it's not a secret ballot.  In fact, if the Master can decide whether it's valid or not, it's not even really a ballot, since it must be approved by someone else.

What if you know something about the petitioner that you cannot reveal without bringing considerable embarrassment to a friend or family member?  What if that reason is so strong that you will have to leave your lodge rather than sit in lodge with this man?


----------



## Pete Ramboldt

I forgot to say that if a black cube is in the ballot, the ballot is destroyed and another ballot is taken immediately. If the second ballot has a black cube, then the 48 hour rule starts. The only time you need to reveal your vote to the Master is if you cast a black cube. You should not feel that you cannot reveal your reasons because it is held in confidence between you and the Master. No one else will ever know who or why the cube was cast. This is just done so that someone can’t blackball a candidate for personal or unwarranted purposes. Your vote remains secret.


----------



## JJones

Pete Ramboldt said:


> I forgot to say that if a black cube is in the ballot, the ballot is destroyed and another ballot is taken immediately. If the second ballot has a black cube, then the 48 hour rule starts. The only time you need to reveal your vote to the Master is if you cast a black cube. You should not feel that you cannot reveal your reasons because it is held in confidence between you and the Master. No one else will ever know who or why the cube was cast. This is just done so that someone can’t blackball a candidate for personal or unwarranted purposes. Your vote remains secret.



Ouch, it sounds like they really don't want anyone getting black balled.

You should never have to reveal your reasons for casting a black cube IMO.  It's one of your rights as a MM to vote how you see fit without having the justify yourself to someone else.


----------



## dfreybur

Pete Ramboldt said:


> Your vote remains secret.



Secrecy of the ballot is the landmark I referred to.  In the case described it does not remain secret because it is revealed.  There are levels of secrecy.

In at least one of my jurisdictions if you have an objection that you are willing to reveal you go to the master before the meeting where the ballot is scheduled.  That stops the ballot without the conflict because it's optional.  The situation described here it's not optional.


----------



## Zack

dfreybur said:


> Secrecy of the ballot is the landmark I referred to.  In the case described it does not remain secret because it is revealed.  There are levels of secrecy.
> 
> In the list of 25 Landmarks, I don't see "secrecy of the ballot" mentioned.  Perhaps it is in the Masonic Codes/Laws of the individual jurisdictions, hence it could differ from GL to GL.


----------



## Levelhead

Im all for 1 black ball/cube


----------



## bezobrazan

Warrior1256 said:


> In Kentucky we do not have this option. The Master can not ask any brother how he voted. Furthermore, no Mason is allowed to tell anyone how he voted.


 
That's how it is at our Lodge. What's done is done.


----------



## MarkR

In Minnesota, it is considered un-Masonic conduct to reveal how you voted.  The Master will also call for a re-vote if there is only one black ball, in order to make certain that it wasn't dropped by accident.  A second ballot containing a black ball, or multiple black balls on a first ballot, and the vote is over and CANNOT be discussed any further.


----------



## Warrior1256

MarkR said:


> In Minnesota, it is considered un-Masonic conduct to reveal how you voted.  The Master will also call for a re-vote if there is only one black ball, in order to make certain that it wasn't dropped by accident.  A second ballot containing a black ball, or multiple black balls on a first ballot, and the vote is over and CANNOT be discussed any further.


Sounds like a perfect system.


----------



## dfreybur

Warrior1256 said:


> Sounds like a perfect system.



I rather like a detail variation used in Illinois - When there is a cube in the first ballot the Master must declare a second ballot to be sure.  The difference is he gets to chose between doing it immediately in the same meeting or waiting until the next Stated meeting and doing it then.  It can give extra time for level heads to prevail.


----------



## Warrior1256

dfreybur said:


> I rather like a detail variation used in Illinois - When there is a cube in the first ballot the Master must declare a second ballot to be sure.  The difference is he gets to chose between doing it immediately in the same meeting or waiting until the next Stated meeting and doing it then.  It can give extra time for level heads to prevail.


This sounds good also. I have no problem with a second ballot to make sure that the black cube was not accidentally used or a second ballot at the next meeting for the person that voted no to reconsider. But I do not agree with a Master of a lodge requiring someone to justify their ballot so that then the Master can decide whether he will let the vote count or not.


----------



## JJones

After reading up on this thread some  more I'm genuinely curious how many accidental 'no's are really cast each year.  One is black and square, the other is a white ball and we're reminded which is which before we cast our votes, each time.  We could argue that it's in favor of the elderly brothers but it's been my experience that they take their votes pretty seriously.

There seem to be a lot of precautions against it in various jurisdictions, I won't be surprised when they make it like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.


----------



## MarkR

JJones said:


> After reading up on this thread some  more I'm genuinely curious how many accidental 'no's are really cast each year.  One is black and square, the other is a white ball and we're reminded which is which before we cast our votes, each time.  We could argue that it's in favor of the elderly brothers but it's been my experience that they take their votes pretty seriously.
> 
> There seem to be a lot of precautions against it in various jurisdictions, I won't be surprised when they make it like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.


We have a couple of ballot boxes in our lodge (over the years we've gotten the "stuff" from Lodges that we absorbed when they went defunct.)  One has white balls and black cubes, but the other has white and black balls.  They feel exactly the same.


----------



## dfreybur

JJones said:


> After reading up on this thread some  more I'm genuinely curious how many accidental 'no's are really cast each year.



I tend to see the wording as a euphemism for hot heads prevailing or gaming the system.

In California we ballot in parallel if there are multiple petitioners.  If there's a cube we cycle through them individually.  I remember a cube being dropped on a parallel ballot.  Then we cycled through the 3 petitioners one at a time and they all passed the gauntlet.  It took longer than most of our Stated meetings.  I figured a member objected to parallel balloting, essentially gaming the system.


----------



## MaineMason

A black cube cast for frivolous or personal animus unrelated to the objective character of a candidate is considered misconduct  in the Grand Lodge of Maine.


----------



## Mr.Gixxer

To the gentleman that left me the message.  I'm not trying to MAKE the main stream lodges near me do anything but give me a chance based on all the criteria and not my race. Yes they are well within their rights to both refuse as well as simply black ball me. At which time I must choose to either try again in a year or find and petition a Prince Hall lodge as becoming a mason is still in me.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using My Freemasonry HD mobile app


----------



## Mr.Gixxer

Wasn't able to reply via message,  may be my phone.  

Sent from my SGH-T999 using My Freemasonry HD mobile app


----------



## Rufus

Greetings dear brothers!
Interesting topic.

For me is always hard to take such a decision, which ball throw, black or white, always have to make a choice.

What for you is becoming a major criterion in the voting?


----------



## Warrior1256

Rufus said:


> Greetings dear brothers!
> Interesting topic.
> 
> For me is always hard to take such a decision, which ball throw, black or white, always have to make a choice.
> 
> What for you is becoming a major criterion in the voting?


I am a new MM and have not cast a ballot yet. But when I do if I do not know anything about the candidate then I will have to rely on the information supplied by the investigation committee. If I know the candidate I would consider my opinion of his character and whether or not he may disrupt the harmony of the lodge.


----------



## MarkR

I don't like the three-cube rule, because if you had two brothers drop cubes for valid reasons but the petitioner approved anyway, you could lose two brothers from the lodge to gain one new one.


----------



## JJones

MarkR said:


> I don't like the three-cube rule, because if you had two brothers drop cubes for valid reasons but the petitioner approved anyway, you could lose two brothers from the lodge to gain one new one.



I agree.  Unfortunately, overall growth is more visible than local activity at an administrative level.  While a few members might go inactive or transfer membership elsewhere over something like that, we still show growth and that's where the focus is.  Why bigger is better I don't know.


----------



## Warrior1256

MarkR said:


> I don't like the three-cube rule, because if you had two brothers drop cubes for valid reasons but the petitioner approved anyway, you could lose two brothers from the lodge to gain one new one.


Agreed!


----------



## Brother JC

Our District Inspector made a comment at the Officers Association meeting recently that bears consideration; "The Master of the Lodge should never be surprised by a black ball." Any objection to a Candidate should make it to the East long before the ballot takes place.


----------



## Warrior1256

trysquare said:


> Our District Inspector made a comment at the Officers Association meeting recently that bears consideration; "The Master of the Lodge should never be surprised by a black ball." Any objection to a Candidate should make it to the East long before the ballot takes place.


I can agree with this most of the time. However, if a brother knows something about the candidate that is very private or embarrassing I can see why he would not go to the WM before balloting.


----------



## admarcus1

JJones said:


> I agree.  Unfortunately, overall growth is more visible than local activity at an administrative level.  While a few members might go inactive or transfer membership elsewhere over something like that, we still show growth and that's where the focus is.  Why bigger is better I don't know.


I agree that bigger is not necessarily better, but I doubt the 3 ball vs 1 ball is an attempt to grow the fraternity. If the investigation committee is doing even half- assed job, even one black ball should be so rare as to have little if any impact on overall numbers. 

My jurisdiction has one ball, and it seems to work fine. However, I can see where a jurisdiction may be trying to prevent a lone racist in the lodge from vetoing any African American petitioners, or an antisemite keeping out any Jews. Whether or not that is a good solution, I can't say, but it seems a more likely explanation. As a method of increasing numbers, it is extremely inefficient.


----------



## AaronSawyer

I do tend to agree that a single black ball gives far too much power to the individual at the expense of the fraternity.


----------



## Ripcord22A

In Oregon if only on black cube then the WM directs the SD to destroy the ballot and orders the lodge to vote again.  If a black cube appears again then he announces the result.  
If on the first vote 2 or more black cubes appear then thats it.


----------



## Levelhead

Florida is one black cube and then a re ballot to make sure it wasnt a mistake.


----------



## Warrior1256

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> In Oregon if only on black cube then the WM directs the SD to destroy the ballot and orders the lodge to vote again.  If a black cube appears again then he announces the result.
> If on the first vote 2 or more black cubes appear then thats it.


That's the way it is here in Kentucky.


----------



## MaineMason

"Is it clear in the South?" "Is it clear in the West?". If it's not clear it is up to the WM for a revote.


----------



## MaineMason

One casting a black cube in a lodge under the jurisdiction of the 
Grand Lodge of Maine can be punished by suspension or expulsion if it's done with animus.


----------



## Levelhead

I doubt you will know who did it . But i guess if you know the person or they told you they were going to cast a black cube?


----------



## MaineMason

Levelhead said:


> I doubt you will know who did it . But i guess if you know the person or they told you they were going to cast a black cube?


It is my understanding that a second vote may be taken but if a MM casts a black cube and reneggs his vote could become the subject of inquiry ONLY if he admits to it. It's pretty strict. If you cast a black cube, you'd better have a good reason for it.


----------



## MaineMason

Levelhead said:


> I doubt you will know who did it . But i guess if you know the person or they told you they were going to cast a black cube?


Better than that, one should have a conversation with the CI beforehand.


----------



## MaineMason

admarcus1 said:


> I agree that bigger is not necessarily better, but I doubt the 3 ball vs 1 ball is an attempt to grow the fraternity. If the investigation committee is doing even half- assed job, even one black ball should be so rare as to have little if any impact on overall numbers





admarcus1 said:


> I agree that bigger is not necessarily better, but I doubt the 3 ball vs 1 ball is an attempt to grow the fraternity. If the investigation committee is doing even half- assed job, even one black ball should be so rare as to have little if any impact on overall numbers.
> 
> My jurisdiction has one ball, and it seems to work fine. However, I can see where a jurisdiction may be trying to prevent a lone racist in the lodge from vetoing any African American petitioners, or an antisemite keeping out any Jews. Whether or not that is a good solution, I can't say, but it seems a more likely explanation. As a method of increasing numbers, it is extremely inefficient.


I'd also say that Jews and African Americans are welcome in our lodge and by law by our Grand Lodge.


----------



## MarkR

MaineMason said:


> Better than that, one should have a conversation with the CI beforehand.


I keep asking, what about the brother who knows something about the petitioner that he absolutely cannot discuss with anyone without bringing considerable embarrassment to himself or a loved one?  What's the point of a secret ballot if one is required to reveal how he voted and why?


----------



## Warrior1256

MaineMason said:


> I'd also say that Jews and African Americans are welcome in our lodge and by law by our Grand Lodge.


Same here in Kentucky.


----------



## Warrior1256

MarkR said:


> I keep asking, what about the brother who knows something about the petitioner that he absolutely cannot discuss with anyone without bringing considerable embarrassment to himself or a loved one?  What's the point of a secret ballot if one is required to reveal how he voted and why?


I agree. If it is something that I would consider too personal or too embarrassing to the prospective  candidate I would keep it to myself and cast the black ball or cube.


----------



## Ripcord22A

Well if a brother knows something about the Petitioner that will bring embarassment to himself(the Brother), that to me means that he was involved in someway in that thing that he knows about.  If he can be a mason, why cant the Petitioner?


----------



## admarcus1

MaineMason said:


> I'd also say that Jews and African Americans are welcome in our lodge and by law by our Grand Lodge.


That's kind of my point. Welcome by law, but the single black ball could be used as a veto that renders the law meaningless. It only takes a single bigot.


----------



## admarcus1

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Well if a brother knows something about the Petitioner that will bring embarassment to himself(the Brother), that to me means that he was involved in someway in that thing that he knows about.  If he can be a mason, why cant the Petitioner?


I can think of a number of situations where someone wrongs somebody else, and the victim is embarrassed that it happened.  If you are a victim of a scam, physical or sexual assault.  The person may have victimized someone you know, but that person doesn't want the information shared - unfortunately there can still be stigma associated with being a victim.
You may also know the person to be a complete a-hole, liar, or what have you, but you know the person through something you want to keep private.  Maybe through group therapy, or AA, or a local Dungeon and Dragons club.

Ideally, one should be able to completely trust the WM, or any other Mason, to keep your secrets (per their obligation), but Masons are people, and people make mistakes.  In addition, even if you trust the WM to keep the secret, you may be afraid of being judged by the WM.  Being a Mason or a WM does not cure us of all our biases and prejudices.  There are things about myself and experiences I've had that I might not share.


----------



## Warrior1256

admarcus1 said:


> I can think of a number of situations where someone wrongs somebody else, and the victim is embarrassed that it happened.  If you are a victim of a scam, physical or sexual assault.  The person may have victimized someone you know, but that person doesn't want the information shared - unfortunately there can still be stigma associated with being a victim.
> You may also know the person to be a complete a-hole, liar, or what have you, but you know the person through something you want to keep private.  Maybe through group therapy, or AA, or a local Dungeon and Dragons club.
> 
> Ideally, one should be able to completely trust the WM, or any other Mason, to keep your secrets (per their obligation), but Masons are people, and people make mistakes.  In addition, even if you trust the WM to keep the secret, you may be afraid of being judged by the WM.  Being a Mason or a WM does not cure us of all our biases and prejudices.  There are things about myself and experiences I've had that I might not share.


I totally agree. We have the one black ball rule here in Kentucky and I am happy with it.


----------



## Zack

admarcus1 said:


> .  Being a Mason or a WM does not cure us of all our biases and prejudices.  There are things about myself and experiences I've had that I might not share.


 
I know a couple that got their "virginity" back.  At least they act that way.


----------



## JJones

admarcus1 said:


> That's kind of my point. Welcome by law, but the single black ball could be used as a veto that renders the law meaningless. It only takes a single bigot.



I'd be able to keep that bigot out in the first place if my single black ball meant anything.


----------



## MaineMason

If we had bigots in my lodge or in my chapter, or in the DeMolay Chapter for which I am a trained Dad Advisor, I would wouldn't be a Mason. I'm gay. I'm a line officer. No one gives a good damn. Not in my lodge. They know ME, that's all they care about. I could have been blackballed. I wasn't, especially since the PM (who was filling the SW chair at the time) and the WM knew me to be a good man. I would never discriminate against anyone for membership in a lodge unless it were against my oath and obligation.


----------



## MaineMason

admarcus1 said:


> I can think of a number of situations where someone wrongs somebody else, and the victim is embarrassed that it happened.  If you are a victim of a scam, physical or sexual assault.  The person may have victimized someone you know, but that person doesn't want the information shared - unfortunately there can still be stigma associated with being a victim.
> You may also know the person to be a complete a-hole, liar, or what have you, but you know the person through something you want to keep private.  Maybe through group therapy, or AA, or a local Dungeon and Dragons club.
> 
> Ideally, one should be able to completely trust the WM, or any other Mason, to keep your secrets (per their obligation), but Masons are people, and people make mistakes.  In addition, even if you trust the WM to keep the secret, you may be afraid of being judged by the WM.  Being a Mason or a WM does not cure us of all our biases and prejudices.  There are things about myself and experiences I've had that I might not share.


I know many Masons who are in AA. Just sayin'.


----------



## Warrior1256

JJones said:


> I'd be able to keep that bigot out in the first place if my single black ball meant anything.


Excellent point sir.


----------



## admarcus1

Warrior1256 said:


> Excellent point sir.





MaineMason said:


> If we had bigots in my lodge or in my chapter, or in the DeMolay Chapter for which I am a trained Dad Advisor, I would wouldn't be a Mason. I'm gay. I'm a line officer. No one gives a good damn. Not in my lodge. They know ME, that's all they care about. I could have been blackballed. I wasn't, especially since the PM (who was filling the SW chair at the time) and the WM knew me to be a good man. I would never discriminate against anyone for membership in a lodge unless it were against my oath and obligation.


Sounds like a lodge to be proud of.


----------



## admarcus1

JJones said:


> I'd be able to keep that bigot out in the first place if my single black ball meant anything.



My experience is that bigots rarely wear their bigotry on their sleeves, especially as it becomes less and less socially acceptable.  It's easy to recognize an Archie Bunker (and there I am dating myself), but characters like that are relics, though we occasionally see an exception on the news.

I think that in the end I would come down on the side of one black ball, though I think there are valid reasons to be concerned about it.  I do think we need to be self critical and be on guard against our own ingrained prejudices, and I hope that as Masons, we are committed to doing that.  We cannot work toward becoming perfect ashlars if we ignore the rough edges and imperfections, no matter how subtle.


----------



## Pete Ramboldt

I've seen the S/C ring on Carrol O'conners hand several times in the TV show "In the heat of the Night",
 but never saw it while he played Archie Bunker. (Just an interesting thought)


----------



## Warrior1256

Pete Ramboldt said:


> I've seen the S/C ring on Carrol O'conners hand several times in the TV show "In the heat of the Night",
> but never saw it while he played Archie Bunker. (Just an interesting thought)


I read that O'Conner wore this ring as a prop after he became a sheriff on the show due to his belief that most southern sheriffs were Masons. I still support the one black ball rule as it is here in Kentucky.


----------



## Rifleman1776

I am still learning the (new to me) ways of Missouri Lodges. We hand voted to accept two petitions for the degrees at last meeting. Hard for a bigot to hide doing it that way.


----------



## MarkR

Rifleman1776 said:


> I am still learning the (new to me) ways of Missouri Lodges. We hand voted to accept two petitions for the degrees at last meeting. Hard for a bigot to hide doing it that way.


I think that the good that can be done by keeping bigots from hiding is far outweighed by the loss of a secret ballot.


----------



## Warrior1256

MarkR said:


> I think that the good that can be done by keeping bigots from hiding is far outweighed by the loss of a secret ballot.


I have to disagree with you on this one brother. For many reasons already mentioned I still think that the secret ballot is the way to go. If a brother black balls someone because of their race, religion, etc. then they have to live with themselves and shame on them.


----------



## Bill Lins

Bro. Warrior, you might want to go back & re-read Bro. MarkR's post.


----------



## MarkR

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Bro. Warrior, you might want to go back & re-read Bro. MarkR's post.


Thank you.  What I said is that the secret ballot is more important.


----------



## Warrior1256

MarkR said:


> Thank you.  What I said is that the secret ballot is more important.


I apologize brother, I misunderstood your post. My fault.


----------



## Warrior1256

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Bro. Warrior, you might want to go back & re-read Bro. MarkR's post.


Thanks for pointing this out to me brother. My bad. I totally misunderstood the post.


----------

