Some Lodges, and Grand Lodges require that a criminal background check be performed before a candidate can be elected to receive the Degrees of Masonry. Others do not. What is the best practice?
Certainly a thorough background should always be completed. I’ve seen backgrounds that have been very complete and others that have been done quickly. Some trust should be placed in the three brothers that sign the petition but there have also been instances when a brother will sign a petition and then hand it to two additional brothers for signatures. A criminal background check will typically only show if a petitioner is on a registry (I’m not down playing that information). I don’t know when the interview questions were last updated but that’s an area that should frequently be looked at. When I first started doing background investigations on potential new deputies, asking about child pornography, sexting, checking a persons social media sites wasn’t really on the radar. A 4-5 page questionnaire turned into a 15 page questionnaire that covered everything from cheating on school exams, shoplifting, financial crimes, crimes against children, etc. Backgrounds are an important part of the process but so is learning about a petitioner’s character. Mistakes will always be made and then the fraternity has to live with it. We can’t gloss over the background process just to increase our membership numbers. Programs like the 6 Step program will reveal more about a potential candidate than most background investigations.
Your point about petition signers is well taken. I too have seen Masons just pass a petition around to get it signed by others who don't actually know the man. I think I've seen a lot less of that since people in this area started talking about and understanding the six step process, but I'm sure it still sometimes happens.
I think that the Investigation Committee interview is very important, and I think it should always be done with the family present. Meeting the family or wife as the case may be can often yield good insights I've found.
You mention social media, and I think that is something we should include in the Investigation Committee information. Checking that as a part of the process will likely reveal those folks who behave like lunatics online and allow us to weed them out before they start posting on Facebook harming our reputation.
To my knowledge, none of the Lodges I'm a member of require that criminal background checks be done, but I think that all of them have taken steps to tighten up and take more seriously the investigation process. Guarding the West Gate has been discussed a lot, so I think that we will continue to get better at doing it as time moves forward.
I hope so anyway. Seeing those Suspension/Expulsion letters is always disturbing, and each one of them points to a very serious error in a Lodge's judgement.
There needs to be some standardized system in addition to the six step program. I fear that there will be a rush for quantity of members ($) after the pandemic rather than quality of Brothers.
I think this is exactly correct. A Lodge might feel the desire for a new member(s) so strongly that it glosses over the process and accepts an unsuitable man.
What all of us need to remember is that one unsuitable man in our Lodge will drive away at least ten good men, as the good man who see's an unsuitable man in the Lodge will chose to not petition.
I could not agree with you more, RW Cameron! Fortunately for 311, both candidates are active duty Navy, so the military has already done the legwork for us as far as a criminal background check. Our investing committee will take care of the rest.
Yes, it is handy when it is possible to tell simply from a prospects employment that there is nothing terrible in the background. Makes our jobs a little easier anyway!
I’ve often wondered if the first two degrees shouldn’t be similar to a probation period. That after being initiated, and prior to receiving the Third Degree, a vote of the members to allow the brother to move forward, to maintain the integrity of the fraternity when someone slips through.
This can be done now, if a Lodge feels it is needed.
I won't give any details to avoid any possible embarrassment but in one of my Lodges (I belong to four) we have a Brother who's advance was stopped quite a few years ago. The Lodge initiated him, and then troubling behavior exhibited itself. It was decided by the Lodge on witnessing it that he was unsuited to the Degree of Master Mason.
So he was not given the next Degrees.
I don't know how this practice is codified in other Jurisdictions, but it Washington it is outlined in 20.04BL, Washington Masonic Code, Objection to Advancement.
In short, quoting 20.02BL: "Any member of a Lodge has the right to object to the initiation or advancement of a candidate."
My hunch is that Masonry would be better served if this tool were utilized more often as needed, as a part of more vigorous attempts to guard the West Gate.
One more quick thought: In some foreign jurisdictions it takes much longer to move through the Degrees than it does in the typical US Lodge. Requiring at least a year between the Degrees is not uncommon. I've often thought that the slower process would be better for our Lodges, and for the candidate himself.
RW, thank you for sharing 20.04BL. I think taking more time between degrees can be a positive path if the lodge has an educational program for the brother to enhance his experiences, not just a time line to follow.
Agreed. There would need to be a solid program so that he didn't feel as if he were being slowed down for no purpose. The SJ Scottish Rite Master Craftsman course for the Blue Lodge is quite superb in my view.
Another thing that I know is done in some jurisdictions is to require the candidate to present a research paper on the degree received as a part of proficiency. I've often thought that to be a great idea, for not only would the paper benefit the candidate, but the Lodge pointing him to the resources needed for the paper would be a benefit as well.
Certainly a thorough background should always be completed. I’ve seen backgrounds that have been very complete and others that have been done quickly. Some trust should be placed in the three brothers that sign the petition but there have also been instances when a brother will sign a petition and then hand it to two additional brothers for signatures. A criminal background check will typically only show if a petitioner is on a registry (I’m not down playing that information). I don’t know when the interview questions were last updated but that’s an area that should frequently be looked at. When I first started doing background investigations on potential new deputies, asking about child pornography, sexting, checking a persons social media sites wasn’t really on the radar. A 4-5 page questionnaire turned into a 15 page questionnaire that covered everything from cheating on school exams, shoplifting, financial crimes, crimes against children, etc. Backgrounds are an important part of the process but so is learning about a petitioner’s character. Mistakes will always be made and then the fraternity has to live with it. We can’t gloss over the background process just to increase our membership numbers. Programs like the 6 Step program will reveal more about a potential candidate than most background investigations.
Your point about petition signers is well taken. I too have seen Masons just pass a petition around to get it signed by others who don't actually know the man. I think I've seen a lot less of that since people in this area started talking about and understanding the six step process, but I'm sure it still sometimes happens.
I think that the Investigation Committee interview is very important, and I think it should always be done with the family present. Meeting the family or wife as the case may be can often yield good insights I've found.
You mention social media, and I think that is something we should include in the Investigation Committee information. Checking that as a part of the process will likely reveal those folks who behave like lunatics online and allow us to weed them out before they start posting on Facebook harming our reputation.
To my knowledge, none of the Lodges I'm a member of require that criminal background checks be done, but I think that all of them have taken steps to tighten up and take more seriously the investigation process. Guarding the West Gate has been discussed a lot, so I think that we will continue to get better at doing it as time moves forward.
I hope so anyway. Seeing those Suspension/Expulsion letters is always disturbing, and each one of them points to a very serious error in a Lodge's judgement.
There needs to be some standardized system in addition to the six step program. I fear that there will be a rush for quantity of members ($) after the pandemic rather than quality of Brothers.
I think this is exactly correct. A Lodge might feel the desire for a new member(s) so strongly that it glosses over the process and accepts an unsuitable man.
What all of us need to remember is that one unsuitable man in our Lodge will drive away at least ten good men, as the good man who see's an unsuitable man in the Lodge will chose to not petition.
I could not agree with you more, RW Cameron! Fortunately for 311, both candidates are active duty Navy, so the military has already done the legwork for us as far as a criminal background check. Our investing committee will take care of the rest.
Yes, it is handy when it is possible to tell simply from a prospects employment that there is nothing terrible in the background. Makes our jobs a little easier anyway!
I’ve often wondered if the first two degrees shouldn’t be similar to a probation period. That after being initiated, and prior to receiving the Third Degree, a vote of the members to allow the brother to move forward, to maintain the integrity of the fraternity when someone slips through.
This can be done now, if a Lodge feels it is needed.
I won't give any details to avoid any possible embarrassment but in one of my Lodges (I belong to four) we have a Brother who's advance was stopped quite a few years ago. The Lodge initiated him, and then troubling behavior exhibited itself. It was decided by the Lodge on witnessing it that he was unsuited to the Degree of Master Mason.
So he was not given the next Degrees.
I don't know how this practice is codified in other Jurisdictions, but it Washington it is outlined in 20.04BL, Washington Masonic Code, Objection to Advancement.
In short, quoting 20.02BL: "Any member of a Lodge has the right to object to the initiation or advancement of a candidate."
My hunch is that Masonry would be better served if this tool were utilized more often as needed, as a part of more vigorous attempts to guard the West Gate.
One more quick thought: In some foreign jurisdictions it takes much longer to move through the Degrees than it does in the typical US Lodge. Requiring at least a year between the Degrees is not uncommon. I've often thought that the slower process would be better for our Lodges, and for the candidate himself.
RW, thank you for sharing 20.04BL. I think taking more time between degrees can be a positive path if the lodge has an educational program for the brother to enhance his experiences, not just a time line to follow.
Agreed. There would need to be a solid program so that he didn't feel as if he were being slowed down for no purpose. The SJ Scottish Rite Master Craftsman course for the Blue Lodge is quite superb in my view.
Another thing that I know is done in some jurisdictions is to require the candidate to present a research paper on the degree received as a part of proficiency. I've often thought that to be a great idea, for not only would the paper benefit the candidate, but the Lodge pointing him to the resources needed for the paper would be a benefit as well.
Those are both great suggestions!