# Removing a Member



## Blake Bowden (Aug 11, 2009)

Is there a way to excommunicate a Lodge member? Obviously one needs a favorable vote to join, but can the opposite occur?


----------



## LRG (Aug 11, 2009)

wow, interesting question.
I'll look for it on GL law book


----------



## Bill Lins (Aug 12, 2009)

Only by bringing charges. If the offense is serious enough & a conviction is had, a Brother may be suspended or expelled. See Title V of the GL Law.


----------



## LRG (Aug 12, 2009)

Thank you Bro.Lins

They would have to be some serious charges, I suppose.

What kind of charges would you suppose that would inflict such charges?
I know a felony maybe and sleeping w/a **** ****
But what else?


----------



## Blake Bowden (Aug 12, 2009)

Thanks for the info Bro. Lins. I was hoping that it would be a decision by the Lodge and Officers vs having the GL be involved.


----------



## Bill Lins (Aug 12, 2009)

LRG said:


> sleeping w/a **** ****
> But what else?



I don't know what a **** **** is but pedophilia will get u gone, for sure.


----------



## Blake Bowden (Aug 12, 2009)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> I don't know what a **** **** is but pedophilia will get u gone, for sure.



I got half way through that and a picture of Michael Jackson popped in my mind...I'm so bad..hah.


----------



## Bill Lins (Aug 12, 2009)

blake said:


> Thanks for the info Bro. Lins. I was hoping that would be a decision by the Lodge and its Officers vs having the GL be involved.



Sorry- no such luck. There was a resolution @ Grand Lodge a couple of years back to allow Lodges to send members packing if they couldn't get along & play well with others- I was in favor of it but it went down in flames.


----------



## Bill Lins (Aug 12, 2009)

blake said:


> i'm so bad..hah.



+1!  :d


----------



## Blake Bowden (Aug 12, 2009)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Sorry- no such luck. There was a resolution @ Grand Lodge a couple of years back to allow Lodges to send members packing if they couldn't get along & play well with others- I was in favor of it but it went down in flames.



It should be left to the Lodge. Bill Lins for Grand Master!


----------



## JBD (Aug 12, 2009)

Bill may be a great guy, but I don't want it at the Lodge level.  Too much local politics played out. GL is a hassle but it is designed to be that way.  I joined the fraternity more than a particular Lodge.

One thing about this forum, it stimulates conversation!


----------



## jonesvilletexas (Aug 12, 2009)

If it was left up to the lodge, I could see where a witch hunt could get started. The laws that we have in the GL law is just fine and work well.


----------



## owls84 (Aug 12, 2009)

With the original answer being answered, I am definitely up for the ability to expel a mason from the Lodge with an appeal process to Grand Lodge. My belief is the Worshipful Master does not have enough power in his Lodge. I have seen disruptive people in a Lodge and when the WM get angry, the brother files charges and the WM be reprimanded for not keeping peace and harmony. Then I have seen an issue where the WM tried to get support on an issue to keep peace and harmony and GL hang him out to dry. It is a catch 22. 

I think if it was bad enough and the WM could substantiate his expulsion then he should be able to expel the Mason pending GL final decision. If there are no grounds for the expulsion then the WM should be repremanded and penalized.


----------



## jonesvilletexas (Aug 12, 2009)

If  lodge gets that disruptive, the master has the power to drop th gavel and close the lodge.


----------



## owls84 (Aug 12, 2009)

jonesvilletexas said:


> If  lodge gets that disruptive, the master has the power to drop th gavel and close the lodge.



That doesn't stop the member from spreading rumors. You may say that the Brother could be brought up on charges, but according to GL if you don't hear it from his mouth it is just hear say. We all know how a rumor can spread and break a lodge and their reputation. My feelings are why do the other Brothers have to suffer and get shorted because of a personal quarel between a Master and a member? Like, I said if it is substatiated he should have the power to do so. It should not be the first thing to happen. I think you give this power and a few members may straighten up after a while. 

I am just going by some members I have seen that truely know how to work our system. Don't get me wrong also, I think GL should have final say and they should review all the cases this would happen in. I just hate that you have to file charges and have a member expelled when he may fit in fine at another Lodge.


----------



## jonesvilletexas (Aug 12, 2009)

Under Grand Lodge Law when a Mason has charges brought against him the lodge has to have a trial and the cost of such a trial could drain if not drain the bank account of the lodge, the laws in place is not only to protect you by all the brothers, I stand by my first post we must be careful in how we handle our brothers. With that side I know a few I would love to see go, and they might fell the same about me.


----------



## JBD (Aug 12, 2009)

I think the issue may be less about "how do you get him out" and more about how he got in the Lodge in the first place.  Carefully investigating, evaluating and decision making by the Topliner, Recommenders and the Investigation Committee are needed to insure the proper candidates are presented and accepted.

Additionally, I think the concentration on teaching "to the test" mentality is too prevalent as well.  We see changes in our school systems when the teachers started teaching to the test and we are seeing the same thing here.  Masonry is a life long learning process and too often we forget that.  I am convinced that many of these issues can be prevented by demonstrating the proper Masonic attitude, instilling in new members traditional Masonic values and practicing what we preach.

I know we are all anxious to grow the fraternity.  I also know (at least I think I do) what Josh is talking about.  One has to question the wisdom of advancing someone through the chairs or into an appointed or elected position until you truly know them.

All that said, the Gavel is still the gavel the actual Lodge meeting can be closed.  As far as running of the mouth goes, that usually runs its course and the person is found out.  I understand, trust me, our whole Lodge understands misinformation campaigns.  They happen - it will happen again.  It is just life, it matters not how many times you get knocked down, only how many times you get up.


----------



## owls84 (Aug 12, 2009)

Now that is something I CAN agree with. That is something I have said many times to many people that complain about another member is remember that that person was investigated intiated, passed, raised, and in some instances put through the chairs. Think about that when you go out on your investigations and as they are coming through the degrees. We have the ability to protest advancement or vote on proficiency. Don't let you not doing your Masonic duty be the reason a person slip through. 

That being said, that got me thinking. Could this be a test by the Supreme Architect in dealing with all kinds alike or the rumors? I think that it could bring a Lodge closer if handled properly and possibly as JBD says they seem to be discredited over time causing you to prevail in the long run. I guess the only thing damaged is your image for a time being and if you know you are right and the ones that matters who cares. Really gets me thinking....


----------



## Wingnut (Aug 12, 2009)

I was told a story that went like this:  a lodge a member that was making life miserable for all the other lodge members.  The Officers of the lodge drew up charges on several offenses.  They called the brother in and showed him the charges.  They basically told the brother, you step into this lodge again, these will be filled with GL.  Here is a completed form for you to transfer your membership to another lodge or you can use the demit form.  Your choice, but your not welcome here.

It sounds good, not sure it happened or its the right way to handle it but..!


----------



## owls84 (Aug 12, 2009)

Sounds familiar.....


----------



## JBD (Aug 12, 2009)

Wingnut said:


> I was told a story that went like this:  a lodge a member that was making life miserable for all the other lodge members.  The Officers of the lodge drew up charges on several offenses.  They called the brother in and showed him the charges.  They basically told the brother, you step into this lodge again, these will be filled with GL.  Here is a completed form for you to transfer your membership to another lodge or you can use the demit form.  Your choice, but your not welcome here.
> 
> It sounds good, *not sure it happened or its the right way to handle it but.*.!




But nothing brother, our responsibility is to the fraternity.  If someone or someones did not do their job properly, completed or were fooled then it falls to others to clean up the mess.  It happens.  

I and another brother are having to deal with one now that shouldn't have happened, but the Lodge did not follow the proper procedures.  Things happen regardless of the best intentions.


----------



## Wingnut (Aug 12, 2009)

owls84 said:


> Now that is something I CAN agree with. That is something I have said many times to many people that complain about another member is remember that that person was investigated intiated, passed, raised, and in some instances put through the chairs. Think about that when you go out on your investigations and as they are coming through the degrees. We have the ability to protest advancement or vote on proficiency. Don't let you not doing your Masonic duty be the reason a person slip through.
> 
> That being said, that got me thinking. Could this be a test by the Supreme Architect in dealing with all kinds alike or the rumors? I think that it could bring a Lodge closer if handled properly and possibly as JBD says they seem to be discredited over time causing you to prevail in the long run. I guess the only thing damaged is your image for a time being and if you know you are right and the ones that matters who cares. Really gets me thinking....



As is often the case you made me think Brother.  We let people through the chairs because they are next in line.  For the sake of peace and harmony (and because thats just the way its done) there is seldom more than one person nominated for a chair, so the vote is done by show of hands.  I wonder if requiring a secret ballot for all election votes (balls and cubes or written ballot) would help this situation?


----------



## Sirius (Aug 12, 2009)

Wingnut said:


> As is often the case you made me think Brother.  We let people through the chairs because they are next in line.  For the sake of peace and harmony (and because thats just the way its done) there is seldom more than one person nominated for a chair, so the vote is done by show of hands.  I wonder if requiring a secret ballot for all election votes (balls and cubes or written ballot) would help this situation?




We simply have to many Lodges. Fewer lodges would put an end to this practice.


----------



## Wingnut (Aug 12, 2009)

I just wonder however, if the ballot for and against people that were nominated was done by secret ballot if people that get pushed through the chairs that really shouldnt be would get voted into them.  I know thats a mouthful and kinda confusing lol

ex:  a person moves through the chairs with little effort or even attendance.  Its assumed they will move the south so the new SW nominates them.  As usual (and prearranged) his is the only name put in.  Seldom if ever will a negative vote be case by show of hands.  Peace and Harmony and all that...  If it were a secret ballot even if no other person is put in would that person get elected?  say more black balls than white?  See what a bottle of cheap scotch and ambien can get one to come up with late at night?


----------



## Sirius (Aug 12, 2009)

Wingnut said:


> ex:  a person moves through the chairs with little effort or even attendance.  Its assumed they will move the south so the new SW nominates them.  As usual (and prearranged) his is the only name put in.  Seldom if ever will a negative vote be case by show of hands.  Peace and Harmony and all that...  If it were a secret ballot even if no other person is put in would that person get elected?  say more black balls than white?  See what a bottle of cheap scotch and ambien can get one to come up with late at night?



Here in Louisiana everyone is given a paper ballot and they write the name of the man they want for the office and put it in the box. Then the box is opened on the alter and ballots counted in front of the Lodge. If the man with the most votes accepts the position,  he has the office. So, if you have someone who is not worthy, you can vote for anyone eligible. I must admit, I think it's a better system than Texas. Sorry guys.


----------



## Wingnut (Aug 12, 2009)

If there is more than one nominee thats the way its done here too...


----------



## JTM (Aug 12, 2009)

we found a bunch of minutes from the 1800s from Brazos Union #129.  Scotty32Âº can tell you more about them, but apparently it was quite the norm to bring people up on charges for acting "unmasonic" back then... drinking, especially.


----------



## LRG (Aug 12, 2009)

That is gross.....
I messed up with my many ways of trying to disguise. What i meant was not to fool around w/a brothers woman etc etc. Sorry


Heck ya Bill Lins for GM :===)


----------



## rhitland (Aug 12, 2009)

No, you would be suprised if you have the gall to just ask them to leave how easily they will and if put in a well manner they might even still be your friend. Brother Bruce has a good point keep out before they get in but if they do just have about 5 or 6 guys ASK him to leave may take more than once but I bet he does.


----------



## Bill Lins (Aug 12, 2009)

blake said:


> Bill Lins for Grand Master!



What did I do to pi$$ you off?


----------



## Bill Lins (Aug 12, 2009)

LRG said:


> Heck ya Bill Lins for GM :===)



Oh, Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Joey (Sep 8, 2009)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Sorry- no such luck. There was a resolution @ Grand Lodge a couple of years back to allow Lodges to send members packing if they couldn't get along & play well with others- I was in favor of it but it went down in flames.



That's bad.... There are certain instances that occur that need to be dealt with at the local level. 
That resolution should be brought up again.


----------



## Bill Lins (Sep 9, 2009)

Joey said:


> That's bad.... There are certain instances that occur that need to be dealt with at the local level.
> That resolution should be brought up again.



We'll need to find out when it last was presented- gotta wait 3 years to present it again.


----------



## RedTemplar (Oct 9, 2009)

A felony conviction will do it. A renouncement in the belief in God will do it. Striking a brother MM with malicious intent in the lobby of a lodge did it in my district. 
Bragging about blackballing somebody can do it to.
Stealing from the lodge is another good way to get thrown out, too. 
Properly guarding the West Gate is the best way to prevent it in the first place.


----------



## Bill Lins (Oct 9, 2009)

RedTemplar said:


> Striking a brother MM with malicious intent in the lobby of a lodge did it in my district.



What brought THAT on?


----------



## JEbeling (Oct 11, 2009)

If you go back and re-read it you will find why it was voted down and has no place in Lodge.. ! It would allow some buddy system to figure out if a brother should be out of lodge.. ! 

we have ALWAYS had a way to remove a brother if things are bad.. ! file charges and stand up in lodge and bring charges.. ! don't hide behind some buddy system.. ! 

The BROTHERN are always due their day in court.. ! and both sides need to be heard.. ! This has always been that way from the begining of Masonary..?


----------



## Gerald.Harris (Oct 13, 2009)

Joey said:


> That's bad.... There are certain instances that occur that need to be dealt with at the local level.
> That resolution should be brought up again.



Brother Joey, You will soon be a Past Master !


----------



## Clint Stevens (Nov 4, 2009)

Oops.. I didn't see that this thread was three pages long and I entered info that others had already posted.  

Sorry - still getting used to the forum.


----------



## jonesvilletexas (Nov 5, 2009)

Can the Master of a Lodge barr a mmber of the same lodge? If so what GLL did you get it from (Art.?)


----------



## TCShelton (Nov 5, 2009)

Clint Stevens said:


> Sorry - still getting used to the forum.



Lol, no worries.


----------



## Bill Lins (Nov 6, 2009)

jonesvilletexas said:


> Can the Master of a Lodge barr a mmber of the same lodge? If so what GLL did you get it from (Art.?)



I wondered what became of that post- I was going to ask for the cite also!


----------



## RAY (Jan 3, 2010)

We as lodge members can't remove a member. However the lodge members can get the ball rolling in the right direction if it there is a situation. Many things can get expulsion such as murder,felony's  ect but in these cases have to go through the courts first,the gavel has to drop in the guilty mode then much certified paper work from the courts has to be sent to GL then they in turn send expulsion notifications to the lodge to be read at a stated meeting. A lodge member who creates mayhem can be filed on and trial held by Masonic GL reps who can get a member expelled but not the Lodge. Many years ago lodges handled there own problems but not in today's world.


----------



## TexMass (Jan 3, 2010)

In MA, it's a ten step process to expell a Brother other than the waive of the GM's hand.  It could take a few months.


----------



## Smokey613 (Jan 5, 2010)

Sirius said:


> We simply have to many Lodges. Fewer lodges would put an end to this practice.


 
Interesting thought. I have heard this sentiment expressed before. Out of curiosity, what would you use as a criteria for closing / consolidating a lodge or lodges?


----------



## RAY (Jan 5, 2010)

Smokey613 said:


> Interesting thought. I have heard this sentiment expressed before. Out of curiosity, what would you use as a criteria for closing / consolidating a lodge or lodges?



Small membership and financial difficulty's due to membership or property tax which will be eliminated this year or lack of interest. Any of these could cause action to be taken.


----------



## Smokey613 (Jan 5, 2010)

I understand the "normal" reasons for closing / consolidating a lodge. I guess what I was asking is, what guidelines he thought should be used for solving the "too many lodges" and why some people think we have too many lodges?


----------



## RAY (Jan 5, 2010)

Smokey613 said:


> I understand the "normal" reasons for closing / consolidating a lodge. I guess what I was asking is, what guidelines he thought should be used for solving the "too many lodges" and why some people think we have too many lodges?



OK  I personally don't think we have to many but thats my opinion.


----------



## Smokey613 (Jan 5, 2010)

I concur. We have enough issues with lodges closing without trying to expedite the process.


----------



## Gerald.Harris (Jan 5, 2010)

owls84 said:


> That doesn't stop the member from spreading rumors. You may say that the Brother could be brought up on charges, but according to GL if you don't hear it from his mouth it is just hear say. We all know how a rumor can spread and break a lodge and their reputation. My feelings are why do the other Brothers have to suffer and get shorted because of a personal quarel between a Master and a member? Like, I said if it is substatiated he should have the power to do so. It should not be the first thing to happen. I think you give this power and a few members may straighten up after a while.
> 
> I am just going by some members I have seen that truely know how to work our system. Don't get me wrong also, I think GL should have final say and they should review all the cases this would happen in. I just hate that you have to file charges and have a member expelled when he may fit in fine at another Lodge.


 
Brother Josh, I am actually of the mind that if a brother is disruptive in lodge, and then goes out and starts rumors, then I don't want him sitting in any lodge in this State. If he was a good and true brother, he would have shut his mouth when the Master called him to order, and if he was not  in the wrong, then use the legal system that has been established for many years to seek an end to the situation. Otherwise if he was wrong, then take a repremind from the Master and be done with it.


----------



## Gerald.Harris (Jan 5, 2010)

Smokey613 said:


> I understand the "normal" reasons for closing / consolidating a lodge. I guess what I was asking is, what guidelines he thought should be used for solving the "too many lodges" and why some people think we have too many lodges?


 
My Brother, I am not so certain that we have too many lodges in Texas. I would challange anyone who thinks so to take about a two month vacation and drive this entire State. I believe that we may have too many lodges in certain areas, or perhaps more then the populous might support in a given area, but this is a giant State.Perhaps more lodges should consider Consolidation, this might be a much better solution then just closing lodges. I know that some lodges are in trouble due to geography or demographics. Perhaps they were once situated in a (nice )part of town, but now are located in a (not so Nice) part of town. This is a classic example of a lodge that needs to consolidate with another or several others for that matter.


----------



## TexMass (Jan 5, 2010)

I was told that MA GL had passed that no lodge in MA can exceed membership of 150.  This helped create more lodges and kept members from being "lost" in the membership.  It has worked pretty well.  Also, as far as expelling a brother, I forgot to mention that two years ago the GL of MA passed a by law allowing a lodge to bring a Brother up for review within 12 months of his raising and expell him if he has not met masonic requirments.  This can only be done if a Brother files for a review and the lodge votes in favor.  This is only a paraphrase.  I did not agree with it and voted against it but it passed overwhelmingly.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jan 5, 2010)

I'm not so sure I couldn't support a review process, especially if it has to be approved by the Brethren. Sometimes a Brother turns out to be a different guy than the investigating committee looked at. In the alternative, we could consider having some sort of probationary period.

 I also like the idea of restricting the maximum size of Lodges. I've been told that UGLE does this also. Lodges need to be large enough to support themselves but small enough that the Brethren know each other well.


----------



## HKTidwell (Jan 6, 2010)

In my opinion we have a probationary period, for some it is the minimum time between degrees and for others it is a year or longer.  If we have a person/brother that is not suited for Masonry then we should sit them down and talk to them.  If there is an issue, then the brethren have many different times to speak up.  I've never seen a perfect turn in and everybody needs a Mentor.  Yes both of those are ultimate steps but they are options. 

There are a lot of steps to becoming a Master Mason.
1. Find a Mason
2. Get him to sign off
3. Have two others at lodge sign off
4. Have two more Recommendation
5. Interview
6. Vote
7. Belief
8. There is a part of the EA degree that when you hear it makes you wonder (I once needed a friend who had a cable to tow my truck)
9. Profiency EA
10. Profiency FC
11. Profiency MM

I started out in my head listing all the steps involved while writing this post, when I got to number 5 in my thought process, I decided to write it out.  (Being my thought process, I have to draw pictures and make notes to stay on track.  )  If I was allowed to vote at Grand Lodge and a law was introduced establishing a probationary period I'd vote against it in a heart beat. Just my two cents, that and a few dollars might buy you a cup of coffee.


"Sometimes the best thing to do is to use the processes in place instead of creating more rules." - That thought came from my time at the Fire Department, seemed like everybody wanted more rules instead of using what was in place.    Near the end of my tenure we had rules spelling out things down to the act of passing gas.  Most were reactionary rules, because of situations, but if the officers had done their job in the first place none of the additional rules would have been needed or asked for.  Goes back to putting the right people in place, and making good thoughtful decisions every time a decision/vote is required in my opinion.


----------



## Christopher (Jan 12, 2010)

HKTidwell said:


> "Sometimes the best thing to do is to use the processes in place instead of creating more rules."


 
I definitely agree with that.  That's why I appreciate that the Texas legislature meets only once every two years.

I agree that it certainly seems that in the interest of propping up our declining numbers, a number of brethren are willing to accept petitioners while asking very few questions and doing little investigation.  I recently voted on a petition for the first time since being raised.  It was a horrible exercise in indecision.  The sole information I got to vote on was the petitioner's name (I'd never met him, so this was useless), and a unanimous committee report of "favorable".  How was I supposed to decide whether to welcome this man as a brother based on just that information?  I'd never met him.  I knew nothing about him.  To be quite honest, this being my first time, I was shocked that that was all the information given to me.  I thought surely there would be a report or something, a list of questions and answers, anything.  But no, nothing of the sort was read.

So then I was stuck between the feeling that I really couldn't vote for a man I knew nothing about to become my brother, and the pressure put on me by the obvious expectation that no brother ever casts a black ball.  I seriously doubt any brother in my lodge can recall the last time he cast a black ball, if he has ever done so.

How do you guys deal with this?  Am I off my rocker for not feeling comfortable voting for a petition with no information?  Has anyone cast a black ball recently?  Like I say, I'm new to all the unspoken traditions in Masonry.

My resolution from all of this has been to make sure I'm on as many investigative committees as possible, because it seems if I want to feel like I know how to vote when it comes time, I'll have to get the information I need by being on the committee.

S&F,
Christopher


----------



## Bill Lins (Jan 13, 2010)

Christopher said:


> How do you guys deal with this?  Am I off my rocker for not feeling comfortable voting for a petition with no information?  Has anyone cast a black ball recently?  Like I say, I'm new to all the unspoken traditions in Masonry.


 
Recently we had a candidate whose petition was not going to be approved. Rather than blackball him & possibly create an enemy of Masonry, a little birdie landed on his shoulder & advised him to withdraw his petition. Part of the problem is investigating committees that don't do their jobs. Part of it is that we can no longer (legally) check criminal records, etc., like was done back in the old days. Part of the problem is Brethren giving petitions to men who shouldn't get them in the first place. 

Mistakes will be made and committees will be misled. That's why I proposed a probationary period- if we find that someone is unsuited to be a Mason, we would have a way of getting him out without having to file charges. If a man turns out to be unsuitable but has not committed a Masonic disiciplinary violation, currently we're stuck with him. I think we need a way to correct that.


----------



## vanderson78102 (Jan 13, 2010)

It's much harder to remove a brother than it is to let someone in.  The offense would have to have been very serious and in the end I believe it is up to the GL.  The last one I heard of being expelled was because he was sent to prison.  Reprimand and suspension are much more common.


----------



## JTM (Jan 13, 2010)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Recently we had a candidate whose petition was not going to be approved. Rather than blackball him & possibly create an enemy of Masonry, a little birdie landed on his shoulder & advised him to withdraw his petition. Part of the problem is investigating committees that don't do their jobs. Part of it is that we can no longer (legally) check criminal records, etc., like was done back in the old days. Part of the problem is Brethren giving petitions to men who shouldn't get them in the first place.
> 
> Mistakes will be made and committees will be misled. That's why I proposed a probationary period- if we find that someone is unsuited to be a Mason, we would have a way of getting him out without having to file charges. If a man turns out to be unsuitable but has not committed a Masonic disiciplinary violation, currently we're stuck with him. I think we need a way to correct that.


 or just make it like we did at sul ross.  delay the petition process by setting requirements before they get in.  3 stated meetings + 3 called meetings... they have to at least come hang out quite a bit before they get their petition


----------



## HKTidwell (Jan 14, 2010)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Recently we had a candidate whose petition was not going to be approved. Rather than blackball him & possibly create an enemy of Masonry, a little birdie landed on his shoulder & advised him to withdraw his petition. Part of the problem is investigating committees that don't do their jobs. Part of it is that we can no longer (legally) check criminal records, etc., like was done back in the old days. Part of the problem is Brethren giving petitions to men who shouldn't get them in the first place.
> 
> Mistakes will be made and committees will be misled. That's why I proposed a probationary period- if we find that someone is unsuited to be a Mason, we would have a way of getting him out without having to file charges. If a man turns out to be unsuitable but has not committed a Masonic disciplinary violation, currently we're stuck with him. I think we need a way to correct that.



Why could we not change part of the requirements to force the petitioner to obtain a complete criminal history to submit with their petition.  We require a copy of their birth certificate and if a person is willing to provide that then I would assume they would be willing to submit a criminal history to.  Just an idea, not sure why it isn't a requirement, but this may have been discussed before.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jan 14, 2010)

Not a bad idea, but only part of the solution. There are those who, while not criminal, can become a resemblance to the south end of a northbound horse.


----------



## HKTidwell (Jan 14, 2010)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> There are those who, while not criminal, can become a resemblance to the south end of a northbound horse.


 
I object to the reference!    :17::2::33::17: lol


----------



## Bill Lins (Jan 15, 2010)

Heeheeheeheeheeheehee.. !  :wink:


----------



## Wingnut (Jan 15, 2010)

Background checks are easy and pretty cheap (publicdata.com is one such site) and most district attorney offices allow search of criminal cases also.  EVERY state has a sex offender register online that is free.  Our Junior Past Grand Master mentioned guarding the west gate and using similar resources at his conferences last year.  Google can turn up some interesting items too.  There are some pay search engines (www.lexisnexis.com) can be a good resource...


----------



## HKTidwell (Jan 15, 2010)

Wingnut said:


> Background checks are easy and pretty cheap (publicdata.com is one such site) and most district attorney offices allow search of criminal cases also.  EVERY state has a sex offender register online that is free.  Our Junior Past Grand Master mentioned guarding the west gate and using similar resources at his conferences last year.  Google can turn up some interesting items too.  There are some pay search engines (www.lexisnexis.com) can be a good resource...


 
Some of the counties in Texas maintain free web based services that allow you to type in the name of a person and see if they have been arrested and/or charge with anything.  Some will allow you to search civil cases too.


----------



## Blake Bowden (Jan 25, 2010)

I love my publicdata account!


----------



## Gerald.Harris (Jan 25, 2010)

Me too !


----------



## adampatric (Feb 16, 2010)

A personal notice should be given to the member so that a fair chance would be given to them so that they could stop all the offensive things and still the things are going as it is then the above rule should be implemented.


----------



## Papatom (Feb 16, 2010)

All J W'S shoule be aware of this. It is written in the law book.


----------



## Gerald.Harris (Feb 16, 2010)

adampatric said:


> A personal notice should be given to the member so that a fair chance would be given to them so that they could stop all the offensive things and still the things are going as it is then the above rule should be implemented.


 
I believe that we may have wondered from the subject a little. The use of outside agencies for background checks is not in my opinion for members, but instead should be used to keep unscrupulous men from becoming members.


----------



## Papatom (Mar 7, 2010)

Wingnut said:


> I was told a story that went like this:  a lodge a member that was making life miserable for all the other lodge members.  The Officers of the lodge drew up charges on several offenses.  They called the brother in and showed him the charges.  They basically told the brother, you step into this lodge again, these will be filled with GL.  Here is a completed form for you to transfer your membership to another lodge or you can use the demit form.  Your choice, but your not welcome here.
> 
> It sounds good, not sure it happened or its the right way to handle it but..!



Remember:  MOUTH TO EAR


----------



## Bill Lins (Mar 7, 2010)

Papatom said:


> Remember:  MOUTH TO EAR


 
I suspect (& would hope) that M-T-E had already been tried. Sometimes the "Brother" just won't listen.  :-(


----------



## CarlGlas (Mar 7, 2010)

While I realize this may be a unpleasant subject for some, I feel it is  incumbent upon each of us to bring to answer those who have violated  their Obligation, especially when it comes to a brother Mason. Even after the brother has been advised his actions were in violation of Article 504 of the Laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas and he has failed or refused to make right his mistake, if that were the case.  Therefore, with that in  mind, has anyone ever successfully filed a Charge of Masonic Disciplinary Violations with the Grand Lodge of Texas? If so, but you would not care to publicize it, would you please contact me. I need some guidance.
Fraternally,  CarlGlas@msn.com


----------



## Wingnut (Mar 8, 2010)

MTE only works if the Brother is receptive, if not then FTA may be required...


----------



## Gerald.Harris (Mar 8, 2010)

I really like that idea. We actually use a variation of it down in League City. It is fairly common, to come to a meeting and have dinner with a feller or two that just happen to be visitors and not members of a lodge. 





JTM said:


> or just make it like we did at sul ross.  delay the petition process by setting requirements before they get in.  3 stated meetings + 3 called meetings... they have to at least come hang out quite a bit before they get their petition


----------



## SSG_Morrison (Mar 8, 2010)

LRG said:


> They would have to be some serious charges, I suppose.
> 
> What kind of charges would you suppose that would inflict such charges?
> I know a felony maybe and sleeping w/a **** ****
> But what else?



I would assume that violating just about anything in your MM obligation would get you the boot.


----------



## Bill Lins (Mar 9, 2010)

wingnut said:


> mte only works if the brother is receptive, if not then fta may be required...


 
smib!


----------



## Gerald.Harris (Mar 9, 2010)

SSG_Morrison said:


> I would assume that violating just about anything in your MM obligation would get you the boot.


 
I sure agree with you on this, plus a multitude of offenses mentioned in the Constitution.


----------



## jrkimbrell (Mar 25, 2010)

Pedophilia? Pedo...pedal...I can't play with my wife's feet?


----------



## Bill Lins (Mar 25, 2010)

Be vewey, vewey careful!


----------

