When your Lodge assigns an Investigation Committee to make a recommendation about a potential candidate, does the Committee visit him, and his wife and kids if he has them, in his home?
If yours does, what are the committee members looking for?
If a visit to the petitioner’s home is not made, can you tell us why your Lodge decided to not do that?
How much extra risk do we take on by not visiting his home, if in fact that is the practice in our Lodge?
We used to make home visits to petitioners, but at some point we stopped doing them, and started holding the investigations at the lodge. I don't know why, laziness? As I remarked last night at our zoom meeting, we stopped, but I am trying to steer our lodge back to how it's supposed to be done.
Home visits are important, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it puts the petitioner at ease, as it seems less an interrogation and more of an informal chat, albeit by three guys in suits and ties. As an investigating committee, it's important to get to know him, but also talk with the spouse/partner (if any) and ask if they are comfortable with his joining and the time commitments we're going to ask. If it hasn't been done before, now is the lodges last chance to hammer home to the petitioner that this is a lifelong commitment, that there are expectations of time, especially as they progress through the degrees, that there is a lot of memory work involved, and some financial obligations now and during his membership.
The petition, and the lodge's acceptance of the candidate is a binding solemn contract that once taken, can never be repudiated or laid aside by either party. The candidate must accept the commitment, and the lodge must do it's part in helping them on their journey now and forever.
And remember, becoming a master mason is best explained by Winston Churchill. "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning".
We do visit the home, and I think this is a vital step because we need to see if there is support at home for the step the petitioner is about to make.
We need also to be mindful of the living conditions as an indication of mental health and stability.
My experience being on Lodge investigation committees has most often included home visits and meeting with family, and I have found that informative. That said, I am not sure it mattered.
As I have stated before there in enormous pressure to accept applications due to diminishing numbers and failing Lodge economics. Now, I have never seen a man admitted, who I investigated, who should have been disqualified based on what I saw in the interviews. I have seen a number of men admitted who, once admitted, demonstrated markedly un-Masonic behavior, and subsequently have been suspended or expelled. Much worse than that is the retention rate of men who we initiate. When I was Master, I was shocked at the number of EAs and FCs who had never completed the degrees.
When we investigate a man, not only should we ask, “is he a good man?”, but “will he finish what he starts?” There are lots of good men, who will not make good Masons. Failure to accept a man does not necessarily mean he is a bad man.
To answer your questions, yes, we need to meet the family. Any missed opportunity to assess the character of a man in question is a risk. In a previous question we looked at problem Brethren and what we need to do to address bad behavior. Remember that every Mason who becomes problematic was approved by an investigation committee. We need to meet the family, we need to do background checks, we need to ask other Jurisdictions if a man has been a Mason and if so, get his history, we need to check social media and we need the six-step program. Being a Mason is a privilege that should be reserved for the best of men.
We still make home visits. It's been a while since I've done one though.
If we've done our part and he's been at several events, then we know him quite well by that point. But this is a good time for the spouse to ask any questions and make sure she understands what Masonry is about.
Now a question, should a Lodge do a background check on someone submitting a petition? There are websites out there that give you more information about someone's background.
I think that we absolutely need to visit a petitioner's home, and family. I feel strongly enough about this that I made a decision in my own mind that from now on I'm going to ask if the Investigation Committee actually did so, and if they didn't I won't be dropping a white ball. Hopefully in such a case the WM would send them back to do some more work, but if not, I just can't vote for a man who I don't think was properly investigated.
We have had far too many (Jurisdiction wide) slip through a very loosely guarded West Gate.
It does seem to me that the move in some Lodges away from visiting the home is new. When I first became a Mason, that is just how it was done. I'm not sure why some Lodges have started moving away from it, especially given that we can all see the damage done by unsuitable men.
I also believe, as was mentioned by others, that we need to start adopting background check requirements for petitioners.
Yesterday afternoon three members of our Lodge made a home visit to a Brother Mason's home as he is petitioning for affiliation with our Lodge. The home visit is very important in that it allows the team to meet the family in their familiar surroundings. As they are in their comfort zone the family and spouse tends to be more open and talk under a less stressful situation that a lodge room might offer. The spouse tends to be a welcoming hostess and open about her thoughts and feeling regarding the faternity when sitting in her living room. This is her home and she feels more in control than she would in a lodge room. In the lodge room the spouse tends to hold back because she feels like she is the guest of the lodge.
I've seen them both ways; my original Lodge did all home visits and it was slow but produced good results. My current Lodge does a mixture but those that do not visit the inquirer's home leave questions and sometimes have geographic limits. A couple seeking entrance live in western or central WA but are intending to relocate later.
I believe we do not need to rush the process, go slow and deliberate, and do a thorough investigation. I've found the spouse almost always has questions that MUST be answered tactfully and honestly. Sometimes finances are the main issue and this can be sorted out quickly with the home visit. The best decisions result from gathering an abundance of information and a home visit greatly aids that.
We used to make home visits to petitioners, but at some point we stopped doing them, and started holding the investigations at the lodge. I don't know why, laziness? As I remarked last night at our zoom meeting, we stopped, but I am trying to steer our lodge back to how it's supposed to be done.
Home visits are important, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it puts the petitioner at ease, as it seems less an interrogation and more of an informal chat, albeit by three guys in suits and ties. As an investigating committee, it's important to get to know him, but also talk with the spouse/partner (if any) and ask if they are comfortable with his joining and the time commitments we're going to ask. If it hasn't been done before, now is the lodges last chance to hammer home to the petitioner that this is a lifelong commitment, that there are expectations of time, especially as they progress through the degrees, that there is a lot of memory work involved, and some financial obligations now and during his membership.
The petition, and the lodge's acceptance of the candidate is a binding solemn contract that once taken, can never be repudiated or laid aside by either party. The candidate must accept the commitment, and the lodge must do it's part in helping them on their journey now and forever.
And remember, becoming a master mason is best explained by Winston Churchill. "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning".
We do visit the home, and I think this is a vital step because we need to see if there is support at home for the step the petitioner is about to make.
We need also to be mindful of the living conditions as an indication of mental health and stability.
My experience being on Lodge investigation committees has most often included home visits and meeting with family, and I have found that informative. That said, I am not sure it mattered.
As I have stated before there in enormous pressure to accept applications due to diminishing numbers and failing Lodge economics. Now, I have never seen a man admitted, who I investigated, who should have been disqualified based on what I saw in the interviews. I have seen a number of men admitted who, once admitted, demonstrated markedly un-Masonic behavior, and subsequently have been suspended or expelled. Much worse than that is the retention rate of men who we initiate. When I was Master, I was shocked at the number of EAs and FCs who had never completed the degrees.
When we investigate a man, not only should we ask, “is he a good man?”, but “will he finish what he starts?” There are lots of good men, who will not make good Masons. Failure to accept a man does not necessarily mean he is a bad man.
To answer your questions, yes, we need to meet the family. Any missed opportunity to assess the character of a man in question is a risk. In a previous question we looked at problem Brethren and what we need to do to address bad behavior. Remember that every Mason who becomes problematic was approved by an investigation committee. We need to meet the family, we need to do background checks, we need to ask other Jurisdictions if a man has been a Mason and if so, get his history, we need to check social media and we need the six-step program. Being a Mason is a privilege that should be reserved for the best of men.
We still make home visits. It's been a while since I've done one though.
If we've done our part and he's been at several events, then we know him quite well by that point. But this is a good time for the spouse to ask any questions and make sure she understands what Masonry is about.
Now a question, should a Lodge do a background check on someone submitting a petition? There are websites out there that give you more information about someone's background.
I think that we absolutely need to visit a petitioner's home, and family. I feel strongly enough about this that I made a decision in my own mind that from now on I'm going to ask if the Investigation Committee actually did so, and if they didn't I won't be dropping a white ball. Hopefully in such a case the WM would send them back to do some more work, but if not, I just can't vote for a man who I don't think was properly investigated.
We have had far too many (Jurisdiction wide) slip through a very loosely guarded West Gate.
It does seem to me that the move in some Lodges away from visiting the home is new. When I first became a Mason, that is just how it was done. I'm not sure why some Lodges have started moving away from it, especially given that we can all see the damage done by unsuitable men.
I also believe, as was mentioned by others, that we need to start adopting background check requirements for petitioners.
Yesterday afternoon three members of our Lodge made a home visit to a Brother Mason's home as he is petitioning for affiliation with our Lodge. The home visit is very important in that it allows the team to meet the family in their familiar surroundings. As they are in their comfort zone the family and spouse tends to be more open and talk under a less stressful situation that a lodge room might offer. The spouse tends to be a welcoming hostess and open about her thoughts and feeling regarding the faternity when sitting in her living room. This is her home and she feels more in control than she would in a lodge room. In the lodge room the spouse tends to hold back because she feels like she is the guest of the lodge.
I've seen them both ways; my original Lodge did all home visits and it was slow but produced good results. My current Lodge does a mixture but those that do not visit the inquirer's home leave questions and sometimes have geographic limits. A couple seeking entrance live in western or central WA but are intending to relocate later.
I believe we do not need to rush the process, go slow and deliberate, and do a thorough investigation. I've found the spouse almost always has questions that MUST be answered tactfully and honestly. Sometimes finances are the main issue and this can be sorted out quickly with the home visit. The best decisions result from gathering an abundance of information and a home visit greatly aids that.