Apr 3, 2023·edited Apr 3, 2023Liked by Cameron M. Bailey
In NC we require the background check. The investigation committee determines favorable or unfavorable depending on the circumstances of the report and the conversation with the man. Here is what I've found over the years. Not every one knows how to interpret a background check, some times they are wrong, sometimes petitioners lie and we would have not known otherwise. People who have served their time IMHO have paid their debts. Most important masonry isn't a path to reformation or some salvation. Finally, there are a lot, I mean a lot of men with a record, i mean a lot. I talked to a criminal defense attorney who told me no one is a Saint.
Here in Washington the Grand Lodge has never required a background check. Some Lodges do, and some do not, but at the upcoming Annual Communication we will be voting on a resolution to make background checks universal.
I agree with you, 100% that Masonry isn't a path to reformation, and I think that we do very well to remember that. A man needs to have reformed himself before he is considered for Masonry.
As a PM of a lodge that lost their temple due to massive theft by the TB treasurer......yes, background checks are a must. The TB treasurer had a previous conviction for financial skullduggery and that could have saved 5 lodges, 2 OES chapters and Rainbows, DeMolays etc from being losing their home of almost 50 years.
If a man has a conviction, long ago, for a financial crime, but the Lodge believes him to be reformed, so admits him for membership, it still seems like a good idea to me to never elect him to a position in which he would be handling the Lodge's financial assets.
But, as men come and go in the Lodge, is there a way that can be reasonably communicated to the new men?
I'm not advocating for anything with this comment, and I haven't thought about it, but it popped into my mind while reading yours so thought I would throw it out there.
Boy that’s a good point. On the one hand yes, to safeguard both the lodge from loss and a Brother from temptation…….yes the need to communicate the pertinent info is needed.
On the other…….if the Brother is truly reformed………
Yes, and yes. The West gate must be guarded. IMHO we should strive for excellence in our membership. Becoming and staying a Mason is a privilege, not a right, a reward for leading a good life. We have to draw the line somewhere, and "felonies" seems to be a reasonable line.
And I'm almost with you on felony crimes, but not quite. I think that we must consider the circumstances and shouldn't make an automatic decision, because unjust convictions do happen.
In my view, a felony should generally disqualify, but not in every case.
Apr 3, 2023·edited Apr 3, 2023Liked by Cameron M. Bailey
Background checks have proven invaluable in our jurisdiction (NY) and in some cases would have prevented much embarrassment if done years ago. {Obvious caveat: I am not speaking on behalf of Grand Lodge}
Having said that, I absolutely reject the notion that a felony should disqualify, given that we live in a police state in terms of criminalization and incarceration compared to any other nation in the world. You can literally end up with a felony by mistake for something trivial like having an extra television set attached to your cable. Heck, urination in public can put you on a sex offender registry for life in one state. And racial disparity of sentencing is a whole other issue we should not allow to influence our otherwise egalitarian Craft.
This is why we have an investigating committee. If a candidate is honest about a criminal record, we can judge whether or not it reflects an incurable moral defect. Are we going to exclude anyone who made a bad decision as a teen twenty years ago and are now a family man? As with anything ethical, context matters, and people can change. We all have a checquered pavement, whether or not we have a criminal record.
I say let secular law and records inform us, but leave judgement to the Craft.
I find myself in complete agreement with you regarding felony crimes. In my professional life I've worked a good deal with water habitat issues, and I've encountered two men who did things that no normal person would consider a crime, but both were branded as criminals.
One man had a stream running through his property, right behind his house. He cleaned it up and made it a nice feature in his yard. For that he was charged with and convicted of a felony.
Another man's home was next to a roadway that was under construction. His house was situated lower than the roadway. The road construction guys laid out some sandbags to divert standing rainwater from where they were working. Unknown to them, this diverted water was more than the man's property could absorb, so was flooding him. He went to them and asked them to move the sandbags to send the flows elsewhere. They did so, with his help. For that, he was charged with a felony. Those charges were ultimately dropped, but they were made.
Neither of these things are crimes. But both are defined as crimes under the regulations we all live under. Prosecutorial discretion generally takes care of nonsense like this, but in some cases, such as the two above, it doesn't. Errors in discretion are made.
So yes, I am with you. Felony conviction should not disqualify or lead to expulsion. The Craft should make the determination of who is and who is not allowed to be a Mason, not the State.
All of that said, I think that in general a Felony should disqualify, but, I think the Craft needs to look into the circumstances. It should not be automatic.
When I was looking to rent a house, each landlord required a background check (that I had to pay upfront) just to be considered. There are systems in place where an organization like GL can provide a centralized place online that would receive the reports and could share them with the pertinent lodges, all paid for by the petitioner. I am always for reducing GL's power and influence over the blue lodges, but in this case, it would be much more cost effective to set this up in one place, instead of 180+ different organizations.
As far as the second question, if a brother commits a felony while in the fraternity, I'd certainly expect an expulsion, but it would (as others mentioned) depend on the circumstances.
I also really like the old system that W B. Thomas mentioned on our last Rummer & Grapes gathering.
Where the names of the petitioner in any Lodge in his county was shared with every Lodge in that county, just as a check to see if someone in a different Lodge had information that the Lodge considering the petition could benefit from. That was apparently done outside of the Grand Lodge, but sounds like it could be an effective step for Lodges to take, and doesn't seem like it would be very difficult to accomplish given our system of Districts.
When a man initiates an inquiry into joining freemasonry, he is already assigned a membership #. GL then can append background check reports to his record. Only GL and the lodge he's been assigned to can view it, and only then by the elected officers. I would suspect that if he tries to reapply his record would still be there. I don't see anything wrong with co-opting grandview to handle much of what we're discussing.
In my time I have seen Grand Lodge order the reinstatement of men who were light fingered to the detriment of the craft. They knew somebody. I have seen lodges do such poor jobs at investigating ( or deliberately ignored information) that they voted in brothers who were dropped NPD in their home lodge. They had a friend in GL. I have seen problematic Brothers passed off to other lodges without a word of warning. especially for financial reasons. As if they were delighted to be rid of them. This happens in the military too. Most of us have no clue who we are dealing with most of the time. Things do work best when left at the local level. There is corruption at the highest levels that no background check or court report is going to expose. Some of the squeakiest clean persons I have ever encountered were deceitful scoundrel's.
I believe background check are necessary in these times. it's a very inexpensive and the prospects for Mansonic membership pays .it's not any guarantee but it will help us guard the west gates.
I agree that it is an important tool. The only danger I see is if we become overly reliant on the check. Lots and lots of criminals get away with the bad they do, at least for a time, so even with the checks, we still need to do an excellent job guarding our West Gate.
In today's environment, it is, unfortunately a necessary evil. How can we preach ethical behavior and conduct if there are people in our midst who would steal and cheat from us? How would it look to the outside world if hypocrisy enshrouds our craft? All the bad things people say about us would come piling back on top. We are a fraternity, not a den of thieves.
It does seem like an easy tool we can use as one way of protecting the Craft. We would forever regret not utilizing it if we were to let a truly bad man into our Lodge, later discovering our error and realizing that we could have known all along had we simply required the check.
I think background checks are a great tool. As an organization where adults have opportunities to interact with youth programs, we should at least be checking to see if a candidate is a RSO or has sexually motivated crimes in their past. I would certainly also want to know if a candidate has financial crimes in their past. As far as whether a brother should be expelled if convicted of a felony class crime, should not the brother be afforded due process? Shouldn’t he at least be afforded a Masonic trial before being expelled. Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t think the brother should remain a part of the fraternity if convicted.
Your point about due process is very well taken. Anything automatic certainly seems like a denial of due process, and our Fraternity, as a model of self government should stand as an example of good government, including the protection of fair and proper process, protecting the rights of the accused.
It was brought up in last night's Rummer and Grapes Zoom meeting - how many have actually seen a black cube in a vote? A few have, but in my 10 years, I've never seen it happen. It might be because at least partly, we're a military area, with two major navy bases nearby, and most of our candidates come from the military. In this area, I would think that being in the military might negate the requirement for a BG check.
For a long time, I didn’t see any negative ballots, but over the last decade or so, I’ve seen more of them. This includes Lodges in other areas where I was a visitor. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
I remember one case in one of my Lodges where the petitioner admitted he had a record, and then the Investigating committee couldn’t contact him. That brought up an interesting point of order, in that we had to raid the other ballot boxes of their black cubes to make sure there were enough of them for every member of the Lodge who was in attendance for that meeting. No Lodge member should be forced to cast a ballot contrary to his decision (not sure if I phrased that right), due to a lack of either white balls or black cubes.
I have seen two petitioners cubed in my own Lodges. Both of those cubes were understandable and appropriate in my view. I have also seen cubes dropped in Lodges I was visiting.
I have often read, especially on Social Media, the view that 'there should never be a black cube, that a guy who intends to ballot in the negative should talk with the WM so that the petition can be withdrawn before it gets to the point of the ballot.'
As with most things said loudly on Social Media, such opinions are simplistic and in error.
In many Jurisdictions, including my own, it is impossible for a petition to be withdrawn between the time it is received by the Lodge and when it is ballotted upon. In many Jurisdictions it is a violation of Masonic Law to discuss how one intends to ballot upon a petition.
In Washington, and many other Jurisdictions, the black cube is the only option available.
Back ground checks are a good idea, Back ground checks don't tell you everything but they should be enough. Credit checks may be of similar use. Scoundrels can and do slip by because they are invisible. They are squeaky clean and seldom leave a trail, they have innocuous past and very little social history. Much in the same way a career politician will have a clean slate, such as no business failures or bankruptcies because they never had business etc. So yes to background checks but investigate the man.
Automatic expulsion? Absolutely not. We as Freemasons should decide such a thing. Suppose a brother was accused of a crime that was obviously trumped up. Supposed they were in a foreign land and tried on sham charges and tossed into prison for political reasons? Would we not want to examine the situation for ourselves? There are many cases right here at home where a man may find themselves pleading guilty to any number of things to protect their families, save their business, preserve their finances etc. I don't think abdicating our Masonic responsibilities to increasing doubtful civil authorities is a good idea or even Masonic. So no.
Background checks, yes...findings need to be reviewed at the Lodge level, taken case by case, then the investigations committee make their decision from their.
That is how it works in the Lodge I'm a member of that does them. They are received by the Lodge, then given to the investigation committee, who then discusses it with the man in question if needed. They then make their recommendation.
What would be a non-starter in that Lodge is if a man lied on his petition and claimed to have a clean criminal record when the check showed otherwise.
Back not to many years ago , the community and neighborhoods people new most everyone and it wasn't a problem of vetting a man , but it's not that way any longer even in smaller towns. so let's do our do diligence and guard our gates all of them including the south, west , east and the secretary and treasure gates .
On the first question: I am generally favorable but have some reservations. Most of the time there is no doubt about the petitioners rectitude or veracity. A blanket requirement would be totally unnecessary and perhaps demeaning. So I tend to believe it should not be a blanket requirement. Rather it should be suggested in cases where the petitioner is relatively unknown or there is something in his past that raises a question. I realize this brings an issue of "discrimination" - "why me and not him".
We need to inform every petitioner that we may conduct a background check but there should not be a blanket requirement that we do so on all petitioners.
On the second question: We have had two instances where the petitioner indicated that he had been arrested and convicted of a felony. In both cases we received details and evidence of his rehabilitation and sincere remorse. In both cases the petitioner got his three Masonic recommenders. In one case the petitioner moved away before we read the petition in Lodge in the second case the petitioner was given the degrees of Masonry and became a respected Master Mason. Trust and respect are the the core requirements of becoming and being a Mason. If a person that made a mistake in his early life has paid for it and is honest about it I believe we can trust and respect him. Thus I do not believe that a mistake made in early life and reconciled in later life needs to necessitate an automatic rejection.
The Tree of Life has two columns: Justice and Mercy. Masonry teaches us to take both into consideration before making judgment. Equilibrium, Balance. Remember the Golden Rule.
>>>The Tree of Life has two columns: Justice and Mercy. Masonry teaches us to take both into >>>consideration before making judgment. Equilibrium, Balance. Remember the Golden Rule.
In NC we require the background check. The investigation committee determines favorable or unfavorable depending on the circumstances of the report and the conversation with the man. Here is what I've found over the years. Not every one knows how to interpret a background check, some times they are wrong, sometimes petitioners lie and we would have not known otherwise. People who have served their time IMHO have paid their debts. Most important masonry isn't a path to reformation or some salvation. Finally, there are a lot, I mean a lot of men with a record, i mean a lot. I talked to a criminal defense attorney who told me no one is a Saint.
Here in Washington the Grand Lodge has never required a background check. Some Lodges do, and some do not, but at the upcoming Annual Communication we will be voting on a resolution to make background checks universal.
I agree with you, 100% that Masonry isn't a path to reformation, and I think that we do very well to remember that. A man needs to have reformed himself before he is considered for Masonry.
As a PM of a lodge that lost their temple due to massive theft by the TB treasurer......yes, background checks are a must. The TB treasurer had a previous conviction for financial skullduggery and that could have saved 5 lodges, 2 OES chapters and Rainbows, DeMolays etc from being losing their home of almost 50 years.
Just running something up the flagpole here:
If a man has a conviction, long ago, for a financial crime, but the Lodge believes him to be reformed, so admits him for membership, it still seems like a good idea to me to never elect him to a position in which he would be handling the Lodge's financial assets.
But, as men come and go in the Lodge, is there a way that can be reasonably communicated to the new men?
I'm not advocating for anything with this comment, and I haven't thought about it, but it popped into my mind while reading yours so thought I would throw it out there.
Boy that’s a good point. On the one hand yes, to safeguard both the lodge from loss and a Brother from temptation…….yes the need to communicate the pertinent info is needed.
On the other…….if the Brother is truly reformed………
Difficult decision…..
Yes, and yes. The West gate must be guarded. IMHO we should strive for excellence in our membership. Becoming and staying a Mason is a privilege, not a right, a reward for leading a good life. We have to draw the line somewhere, and "felonies" seems to be a reasonable line.
I am with you on background checks.
And I'm almost with you on felony crimes, but not quite. I think that we must consider the circumstances and shouldn't make an automatic decision, because unjust convictions do happen.
In my view, a felony should generally disqualify, but not in every case.
Background checks have proven invaluable in our jurisdiction (NY) and in some cases would have prevented much embarrassment if done years ago. {Obvious caveat: I am not speaking on behalf of Grand Lodge}
Having said that, I absolutely reject the notion that a felony should disqualify, given that we live in a police state in terms of criminalization and incarceration compared to any other nation in the world. You can literally end up with a felony by mistake for something trivial like having an extra television set attached to your cable. Heck, urination in public can put you on a sex offender registry for life in one state. And racial disparity of sentencing is a whole other issue we should not allow to influence our otherwise egalitarian Craft.
This is why we have an investigating committee. If a candidate is honest about a criminal record, we can judge whether or not it reflects an incurable moral defect. Are we going to exclude anyone who made a bad decision as a teen twenty years ago and are now a family man? As with anything ethical, context matters, and people can change. We all have a checquered pavement, whether or not we have a criminal record.
I say let secular law and records inform us, but leave judgement to the Craft.
I find myself in complete agreement with you regarding felony crimes. In my professional life I've worked a good deal with water habitat issues, and I've encountered two men who did things that no normal person would consider a crime, but both were branded as criminals.
One man had a stream running through his property, right behind his house. He cleaned it up and made it a nice feature in his yard. For that he was charged with and convicted of a felony.
Another man's home was next to a roadway that was under construction. His house was situated lower than the roadway. The road construction guys laid out some sandbags to divert standing rainwater from where they were working. Unknown to them, this diverted water was more than the man's property could absorb, so was flooding him. He went to them and asked them to move the sandbags to send the flows elsewhere. They did so, with his help. For that, he was charged with a felony. Those charges were ultimately dropped, but they were made.
Neither of these things are crimes. But both are defined as crimes under the regulations we all live under. Prosecutorial discretion generally takes care of nonsense like this, but in some cases, such as the two above, it doesn't. Errors in discretion are made.
So yes, I am with you. Felony conviction should not disqualify or lead to expulsion. The Craft should make the determination of who is and who is not allowed to be a Mason, not the State.
All of that said, I think that in general a Felony should disqualify, but, I think the Craft needs to look into the circumstances. It should not be automatic.
agreed, the state is out of control. In some jurisdictions Freemasonry is considered subversive.
When I was looking to rent a house, each landlord required a background check (that I had to pay upfront) just to be considered. There are systems in place where an organization like GL can provide a centralized place online that would receive the reports and could share them with the pertinent lodges, all paid for by the petitioner. I am always for reducing GL's power and influence over the blue lodges, but in this case, it would be much more cost effective to set this up in one place, instead of 180+ different organizations.
As far as the second question, if a brother commits a felony while in the fraternity, I'd certainly expect an expulsion, but it would (as others mentioned) depend on the circumstances.
I also really like the old system that W B. Thomas mentioned on our last Rummer & Grapes gathering.
Where the names of the petitioner in any Lodge in his county was shared with every Lodge in that county, just as a check to see if someone in a different Lodge had information that the Lodge considering the petition could benefit from. That was apparently done outside of the Grand Lodge, but sounds like it could be an effective step for Lodges to take, and doesn't seem like it would be very difficult to accomplish given our system of Districts.
When a man initiates an inquiry into joining freemasonry, he is already assigned a membership #. GL then can append background check reports to his record. Only GL and the lodge he's been assigned to can view it, and only then by the elected officers. I would suspect that if he tries to reapply his record would still be there. I don't see anything wrong with co-opting grandview to handle much of what we're discussing.
In my time I have seen Grand Lodge order the reinstatement of men who were light fingered to the detriment of the craft. They knew somebody. I have seen lodges do such poor jobs at investigating ( or deliberately ignored information) that they voted in brothers who were dropped NPD in their home lodge. They had a friend in GL. I have seen problematic Brothers passed off to other lodges without a word of warning. especially for financial reasons. As if they were delighted to be rid of them. This happens in the military too. Most of us have no clue who we are dealing with most of the time. Things do work best when left at the local level. There is corruption at the highest levels that no background check or court report is going to expose. Some of the squeakiest clean persons I have ever encountered were deceitful scoundrel's.
I believe background check are necessary in these times. it's a very inexpensive and the prospects for Mansonic membership pays .it's not any guarantee but it will help us guard the west gates.
I agree that it is an important tool. The only danger I see is if we become overly reliant on the check. Lots and lots of criminals get away with the bad they do, at least for a time, so even with the checks, we still need to do an excellent job guarding our West Gate.
In today's environment, it is, unfortunately a necessary evil. How can we preach ethical behavior and conduct if there are people in our midst who would steal and cheat from us? How would it look to the outside world if hypocrisy enshrouds our craft? All the bad things people say about us would come piling back on top. We are a fraternity, not a den of thieves.
It does seem like an easy tool we can use as one way of protecting the Craft. We would forever regret not utilizing it if we were to let a truly bad man into our Lodge, later discovering our error and realizing that we could have known all along had we simply required the check.
I think background checks are a great tool. As an organization where adults have opportunities to interact with youth programs, we should at least be checking to see if a candidate is a RSO or has sexually motivated crimes in their past. I would certainly also want to know if a candidate has financial crimes in their past. As far as whether a brother should be expelled if convicted of a felony class crime, should not the brother be afforded due process? Shouldn’t he at least be afforded a Masonic trial before being expelled. Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t think the brother should remain a part of the fraternity if convicted.
Your point about due process is very well taken. Anything automatic certainly seems like a denial of due process, and our Fraternity, as a model of self government should stand as an example of good government, including the protection of fair and proper process, protecting the rights of the accused.
It was brought up in last night's Rummer and Grapes Zoom meeting - how many have actually seen a black cube in a vote? A few have, but in my 10 years, I've never seen it happen. It might be because at least partly, we're a military area, with two major navy bases nearby, and most of our candidates come from the military. In this area, I would think that being in the military might negate the requirement for a BG check.
For a long time, I didn’t see any negative ballots, but over the last decade or so, I’ve seen more of them. This includes Lodges in other areas where I was a visitor. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
I remember one case in one of my Lodges where the petitioner admitted he had a record, and then the Investigating committee couldn’t contact him. That brought up an interesting point of order, in that we had to raid the other ballot boxes of their black cubes to make sure there were enough of them for every member of the Lodge who was in attendance for that meeting. No Lodge member should be forced to cast a ballot contrary to his decision (not sure if I phrased that right), due to a lack of either white balls or black cubes.
I have seen two petitioners cubed in my own Lodges. Both of those cubes were understandable and appropriate in my view. I have also seen cubes dropped in Lodges I was visiting.
I have often read, especially on Social Media, the view that 'there should never be a black cube, that a guy who intends to ballot in the negative should talk with the WM so that the petition can be withdrawn before it gets to the point of the ballot.'
As with most things said loudly on Social Media, such opinions are simplistic and in error.
In many Jurisdictions, including my own, it is impossible for a petition to be withdrawn between the time it is received by the Lodge and when it is ballotted upon. In many Jurisdictions it is a violation of Masonic Law to discuss how one intends to ballot upon a petition.
In Washington, and many other Jurisdictions, the black cube is the only option available.
Back ground checks are a good idea, Back ground checks don't tell you everything but they should be enough. Credit checks may be of similar use. Scoundrels can and do slip by because they are invisible. They are squeaky clean and seldom leave a trail, they have innocuous past and very little social history. Much in the same way a career politician will have a clean slate, such as no business failures or bankruptcies because they never had business etc. So yes to background checks but investigate the man.
Automatic expulsion? Absolutely not. We as Freemasons should decide such a thing. Suppose a brother was accused of a crime that was obviously trumped up. Supposed they were in a foreign land and tried on sham charges and tossed into prison for political reasons? Would we not want to examine the situation for ourselves? There are many cases right here at home where a man may find themselves pleading guilty to any number of things to protect their families, save their business, preserve their finances etc. I don't think abdicating our Masonic responsibilities to increasing doubtful civil authorities is a good idea or even Masonic. So no.
>>>I don't think abdicating our Masonic responsibilities to increasing doubtful civil authorities is a >>>good idea or even Masonic. So no.
Very well said Brother. Thank you!
Background checks, yes...findings need to be reviewed at the Lodge level, taken case by case, then the investigations committee make their decision from their.
That is how it works in the Lodge I'm a member of that does them. They are received by the Lodge, then given to the investigation committee, who then discusses it with the man in question if needed. They then make their recommendation.
What would be a non-starter in that Lodge is if a man lied on his petition and claimed to have a clean criminal record when the check showed otherwise.
Back not to many years ago , the community and neighborhoods people new most everyone and it wasn't a problem of vetting a man , but it's not that way any longer even in smaller towns. so let's do our do diligence and guard our gates all of them including the south, west , east and the secretary and treasure gates .
As our society grows ever more mobile this particular challenge will grow more and more difficult.
On the first question: I am generally favorable but have some reservations. Most of the time there is no doubt about the petitioners rectitude or veracity. A blanket requirement would be totally unnecessary and perhaps demeaning. So I tend to believe it should not be a blanket requirement. Rather it should be suggested in cases where the petitioner is relatively unknown or there is something in his past that raises a question. I realize this brings an issue of "discrimination" - "why me and not him".
We need to inform every petitioner that we may conduct a background check but there should not be a blanket requirement that we do so on all petitioners.
On the second question: We have had two instances where the petitioner indicated that he had been arrested and convicted of a felony. In both cases we received details and evidence of his rehabilitation and sincere remorse. In both cases the petitioner got his three Masonic recommenders. In one case the petitioner moved away before we read the petition in Lodge in the second case the petitioner was given the degrees of Masonry and became a respected Master Mason. Trust and respect are the the core requirements of becoming and being a Mason. If a person that made a mistake in his early life has paid for it and is honest about it I believe we can trust and respect him. Thus I do not believe that a mistake made in early life and reconciled in later life needs to necessitate an automatic rejection.
The Tree of Life has two columns: Justice and Mercy. Masonry teaches us to take both into consideration before making judgment. Equilibrium, Balance. Remember the Golden Rule.
>>>The Tree of Life has two columns: Justice and Mercy. Masonry teaches us to take both into >>>consideration before making judgment. Equilibrium, Balance. Remember the Golden Rule.
An important reminder. Thank you Brother.