Our Lodge receives a Petition for the Degrees of Masonry. The Secretary reads the Petition to the Lodge, and the Worshipful Master assigns a small number of men to go off and investigate the man Petitioning…
In your opinion, what are the essential elements of that investigation?
What should the investigating committee do?
What should the investigating committee consider?
What should we, as Lodge members, require them to accomplish as part of that investigation in order to earn our trust?
Would it be wise for our Lodge to formalize this into a set list of duties?
Should a Lodge take action against the members of an investigation committee if it is somehow discovered that the man was recommended by the members of the committee, but a proper investigation wasn’t actually done?
I know for me personally, I want to ensure that we clearly communicate what our expectations are, and have a firm understanding of what he expects to receive from us…
Thank you for this. I think that it's really important, but often overlooked, for us to communicate our Lodge's expectations to our petitioners. How can they rise to meet our expectations, if we don't communicate our expectations?
But, taking it a bit further, I think that some Lodges don't have any expectations of their members, beyond paying the dues once a year. That needs to change, if a man seeks to be seen as a Mason, there should be expectations imposed upon him by his Lodge.
A lot of the issues with the last question has basically been solved with the BG check requirement.
Having said that, the investigating committee should not only ask the questions on the form, but also delve into what the potential candidate is looking for. Granted, this should have been ironed out during the six step process, but you should make sure they understand what's ahead of them, mainly time commitments and memorization.
So many men will simply tell you what you want to hear. I had one brother in the lodge, when presented with the opportunity to skip a chair, he literally jumped at the chance. When cautioned what the SD chair involved as far as memory work, he said "yeah yeah yeah, no problem". He later admitted it was a mistake and he underestimated just how much memory work was involved. We were a very active lodge with a lot of degrees, and he had to memorize a huge pile of ritual in a very short amount of time, like drinking from a firehose.
The BG check helps us weed out a criminal. That said I might well support the membership of a reformed/rehabilitated individual if he could clearly demonstrate that and was upfront about his past. I would expect that the lodge would know about that before receiving his petition.
Beyond that, there is a lot we should know about a potential brother that the BG check will not cover. We need to get to know these men before they petition, we should each ask ourselves:
1. Do I want to sit in lodge with this person? Is he a good fit for our lodge - are we a good match for him?
2. Would I support him as a future office of our lodge?
3. Would I be comfortable with him being around my wife and children, or the Jobies/Rainbow/DeMolay?
4. Is he really serious about becoming a mason and working in the craft?
Jumping a chair - though it is sometimes unaviodable - is a whole different can of worms. Maybe MWB Bailey will consider that a topic for discussion.
The inference of MW's last question was that the brother was bad enough to bring masonic charges against those brothers who completed the investigation, that they needed to be held accountable for reporting a full and favorable return in lodge. This is far different than a guy just not fitting in for whatever reason. Just sitting down and talking with the potential candidate will not always uncover character flaws. As I mentioned, I've been on more than a few investigating committees, and just about every one will tell you what you want to hear, well intentioned or not. I've had men tell me that memorizing stuff isn't a problem, that friday nights are fine, that the money isn't a hardship, etc etc etc. You can tell them that the craft isn't for men seeking a way to enrich themselves through networking and they will nod their head, knowing that is exactly what they want to do.
Eventually those men will be weeded out, either before the balloting, or after. Worst case is that we get to put on a few degrees.
Since starting the six steps program, I wonder if any attempt to analyze the results of retention has been attempted by GL to see if it has actually made much of a difference. It would be a bit difficult I would assume, since not all lodges follow the six steps completely which would potentially skew results.
But your questions you listed are excellent examples of what should be asked regardless.
A man whom no one knew wandered into a Lodge in my Jurisdiction, off the street without prior contact, and joined the Lodge for dinner. During that dinner, he indicated that he wanted to be a Mason.
After dinner, the Lodge asked him to remain in the dining room filling out a petition while they went upstairs and opened their Stated Meeting. He did so.
After Opening the Lodge, a Mason went down to the dining room and collected his petition. When that Mason returned to the Lodge room a couple minutes later, the Lodge read the petition.
The Master then assigned an investigation committee. Those Brothers excused themselves from the meeting, went down to the dining room and 'investigated' the petitioner.
They then returned to the Lodge Room, made a full and favorable report.
The Master then called for the petitioner to be balloted upon. That ballot was favorable.
Within a couple of weeks, the man was Initiated an Entered Apprentice Mason.
A couple of days after that, the Lodge figured out that he was a violent criminal, actually on the run from the authorities.
That was prior to my election as a Grand Lodge Officer.
A quite similar, although slightly less rushed, thing happened in another Lodge in my Jurisdiction shortly after.
In neither case was any action taken against any Brother who had signed the petitions without knowing the slightest thing about the men they were signing for, nor any Brother who had faked an investigation.
In my view, in those two cases, all twelve (three signers on each petition, three who faked each investigation) should have been suspended, if not expelled from Freemasonry. But hey, at least some of them remain honored members of our Craft today, at least one with a fancy title, and at least one other received a fancy award. And then we wonder why we are forced to hold so many Masonic trials.
I had a similar incident occur while visiting a nearby lodge, in that the entire process of voting in a plural member was done over the course of about 30 minutes, culminating with a hand vote to approve his petition.
With your example, the only person that should have been held accountable is the WM that let all that transpire. Of all people, he should have known better.
I don't disagree, but I will expand on the story just a touch, because I think it also has bearing on the situation.
The WM was basically Raised a Master Mason and then immediately put into the East. He was a brand spankin' new Mason. The Secretary was suffering from obviously severe mental decline.
Those two things said, there were experienced and competent Masons, familiar with our rules who participated in this farce.
The other Lodge mentioned, did have experienced Officers in control when their own farce went down.
I agree, I would support the Petition of a man who had done something wrong long ago, but was able to convince me that he had reformed. I do think that would require a lengthened process though.
I would also support the Petition of a man who was convicted of a felony crime, that I didn't believe to be a crime. Far too many things are criminalized in the United States.
Ultimately though, the most important question to my mind is:
Can I trust this man to watch my young granddaughters?
If not, if I wouldn't feel comfortable with him watching them if I had an emergency, then no, he is not suitable for the Degrees of Masonry.
I'm afraid that jumping chairs is something that I'm really familiar with.
As a brand spankin' new Mason I was installed Junior Steward, then Senior Steward the next year. Then I was installed Senior Deacon in a different Lodge, then Senior Warden but was actually the acting WM because the installed WM had a personal tragedy almost immediately following installation so wasn't able to be in the East for most of his year. So, I guess I jumped from SD to acting WM in a year.
Thank you Brother. I appreciate your confidence. But, I imagine I would have done better without all the jumping. Unfortunately, due to the situation in the Lodge, jumping was required.
I started out as Senior Steward due to an unexpected vacancy. Then I created one by joining the Navy and having to resign my office. It was the only real regret I had about joining the Navy and volunteering for the Submarine Service. That experience like DeMolay & Freemasonry have altered the course of my life in amazing and unexpected ways.
It's taken me all the intervening 40+ years to find convenient and welcoming lodges, and the TIME (I'm now retired) to get involved again. I am Really Enjoying it! Through all those years I remained Proud to be a Mason, wore my Masonic jewelry, paid my dues, and visited my home lodge when able.
You are right of course, people tell others what they think they want to hear. It's human nature.
I think that's the big benefit of something like the 'Six Step' process, or any other process that slows things down, and requires a lot of contact before a Petition is handed over. Because if that 'telling them what they want to hear' isn't true, it is hard to keep up over the long term. Eventually we have an opportunity to see the answer instead of just hearing it.
And I agree, 100%, we can't just rely upon whatever questions Grand Lodge suggests we ask. Those are suggestions, meant to be expanded upon by the Lodge to fit the unique circumstances of the Lodge.
As a lodge or group, we should, like with ritual, practice doing investigations. Asking questions, for some, is a difficult thing. Asking difficult questions can be next to impossible. Each lodge should create additional questions based on their lodge culture, expectations and activities. By “practicing” your investigations, everyone can be assured they’re being properly conducted and a negative action would never have to be taken or contemplated. If a WM selects Brothers to conduct an investigation, and they have no experience or understanding on the proper way an investigation should be conducted, then who is truly at fault?
Maybe a role play of a "good" and a "not so good" investigation would be a good Masonic Education topic. The lodge member could then comment and critique.
In my days in management at IBM, we trained by role played giving appraisals - both good and not so good ones. The experiences as both a role player and fly on the wall gave me a lot of useful insight into the process and peoples potential reactions. I think it could work with investigations too. We would never have someone going on their first one cold.
The best “how to” I’ve ever seen is in the pages of the Masonic Restoration Foundation’s book “Traditional Observance Lodge Guide” from 2005. Eleven pages of instruction are devoted to a long process of assessing a petitioner.
One paragraph: “Investigations should be very thorough, usually taking at least 2 to 3 months following the time petition is submitted until the time it is voted upon. At least 6 to 8 hours should be spent with the candidate during the interview process. During the interviews with the candidate, serious questions should be asked that will enable the interviewer and subsequently the Lodge to make a judgment on the type of man being considered. The investigation process will determine if the candidate is a superficial person or one who has depth and whether he would make a good fit for this particular Lodge and Freemasonry in general.“
The interview process is especially useful, in that the MRF recommended three sets of questions that drive at the same goal but are paraphrased. For example:
First Interview-How do you define ethics?
Second Interview-What does the word morality mean to you?
Third Interview-What is virtue in your opinion?
If the brethren receive inconsistent answers, they can see the petitioner might not be well suited for our fraternity.
Some of this time can be the time spent with the potential candidate when he attends masonic activities: meals before meetings, trips or outings, attends lodge events. We must make a point to engage them when they do. We recently discussed welcoming committees...
The timing and process seems similar to the program that the GL of Washington suggests our Lodges follow, but in reverse.
In our suggested process there would be at least two or three months between the time the Lodge first met the man, and his being given a petition, with a number of activities taking place within those months, surely adding up to at least 6 or 8 hours. Probably significantly more hours if the process were fully followed. Then the petition can be given.
After that the interview process would begin, but would be much shorter than the pre-petition process.
The trouble, as I'm sure it is everywhere, is when Lodges don't bother with this, or any other meaningful process. Generally because they are desperate for members and don't realize that a single unsuitable member will drive suitable men away in droves.
I really like the three questions you include. Thank you!
Just like how the HR profession has fairly standardized procedures on conducting interviews, I think it behooves a lodge to have some standardized direction on conducting investigations. Especially on questions to ask referents. One question I have been making sure to always ask referents is: "is this person someone you would trust to take care of your kids/family in an emergency?"
>>>One question I have been making sure to always ask referents is: "is this person someone you >>>would trust to take care of your kids/family in an emergency?"
Thank you for this. I think that it cuts right to the heart of the matter. If I can't trust a man with my family, I can't trust him to be a Mason.
We have to remember that when we make a man a Mason, some people will really trust him, and he will be exposed to other people's children.
Years ago my Lodge convinced the Rainbow Girls to do a project, with the promised help of our Lodge members. They thought it sounded cool, so jumped on board.
I live closest of all our members to our Masonic Temple here in Centralia, so I went down early to open the place up, and get everything ready for the project. I was there, all alone.
It turned out that the parents of one of the girls were also really early. I'd never met either parent, nor had I met the girl. But, they just dropped her off. Without saying a word to me.
Would we trust a man, in a similar situation, is a really really important question to ask ourselves, and be confident in the answer we give ourselves. Because something like that could well happen.
Committees I have served on wanted to learn the man's expectations of us, we explained our expectations for him. We explained that there would be time spent in the lodge besides the meetings and that we expected them to visit lodges with a brother to learn as much as possible. We also discussed the financial expectations. We also discussed his preconceived ideas about Freemasonry. We also discussed family programs and concordant bodies. We even asked the wives for their expectations and what they thought they knew about our fraternity. As Secretary, I would run a criminal background check just to be sure.
Our lodge really embraced the six step program; we made sure they visited other lodges before they petitioned so that they were comfortable petitioning our lodge. They were strongly encouraged to attend ourThursday night gatherings at the lodge. We always had someone available to talk to them and introduce them. We where blessed to have WB Paul Casson in our lodge and he truly loved and looked after the craft.
I'm glad that you mentioned talking with the wives. In my view, it is vital, if a man has a wife or partner that we interview that person as well. We don't want to Initiate a man whose wife is against it.
I remember when I was investigated for the Degrees (mainly because the Brothers showed up hours late because they got totally lost trying to find my house deep in the woods) to my memory, those Brothers spent at least as much time talking with my wife as they did talking with me. That was a very good thing.
Well, thank God the investigating committee didn't listen to my wife. She asked "well, what if he isn't a good man?". Our marriage at that time was rocky at best, and she later apologized to me for trying to sabotage my investigation. We separated about a year later. Talking to the wife at times might give folks a bad impression that might be unwarranted.
Another aspect we usually miss out on is when we recognize a potential candidate may not be a fit for our Lodge and it’s culture, we should steer him toward a Lodge that may be a better fit for him. This takes a little coordination and communication, but serves everyone involved in the end.
Excellent point! Just because a man isn't a good fit for our Lodge, doesn't mean that he might not be a great fit for some other Lodge!
In Seattle, most of the Lodges now encourage a potential Mason to visit all of the Lodges in the area before making his choice.
It helps of course that all of the Lodges are clustered together in north Seattle, so the distance between the various Temples is negligible. A plan like that probably wouldn't work in areas where Lodges are more spread out geographically.
I believe in secret investigation. No one knows the committee members. I like separate investigations at the prospect’s home to see a little of how he lives and also to speak with his significant other if he is with someone. I firmly believe in a longer process of joining to see him more and get to know him better if no one has met him or knows of him. We have had our crazies in the past and one time in came during the first degree with Stolen Valor case. You really have to make sure the prospect has no ulterior motives so you need to check his social media history and if he doesn’t share, that’s another red flag. This person is going to be your brother and that entails many rights and privileges. If they don’t have you as a guest at their home, then that’s another red flag. We all must trust each other in our homes and in our private lives. That’s brothers. I can call many brothers for help and I will give help, but if they will never reciprocate, then they’re not True brothers.
I agree completely that a proper investigation must include a trip to a man's home. A great deal about a man can be learned through a short visit like that.
I'm not sure that I like the idea of keeping the members of the committee secret from the Lodge though. There is at least one member of my Lodge who I think is a really great Mason, and who has done wonderful things for Masonry over a great many years, but I wouldn't trust him if he was doing an investigation. Let's just say, for the sake of my argument, that he can't see the bad in anyone.
The WM knows who is on the committee, but by keeping it secret, they each form their own opinion without any pressure from the rest of the lodge or the other committee members.
Reading over the comments I agree and disagree with some. We have the standard questions within our investigation forms. I agree it should be a secret investigation, and the only ones that know are the Secretary and the WM. The six step process should be followed, and I believe at minimum 6 dinners should be attended prior to the man being given a petition. I also think that their mentor should be part of the investigation, they should know what they are getting into, and have a say as part of the investigation. We should also be talking to the signers of the petition; why did they sign? What do they see in the man that they would give their immediate okay signing a petition? All of the above was brought up by a Past Master, and I agree with it.
While Masonry needs members to grow and thrive, we also can't just let the West Gate be wide open for anyone.
I also believe the above process not only keeps current Brothers active and engaged, I think it would help the candidate understand the serious of which we take our Craft, and compel him to be active and engaged as well.
>>>We should also be talking to the signers of the petition; why did they sign? What do they see >>>in the man that they would give their immediate okay signing a petition?
Yep, I think that this is really important.
Back when I was a brand spankin' Mason, many years ago, more than once I watched as a petition came in, with no signatures. The Lodge would then pass it around and Brothers would sign it.
Those were in the days before we started officially talking about and worrying about Guarding the West Gate here in Washington.
But, I haven't witnessed that happening for years. The lesson was learned.
I do though worry about backsliding. I was sitting in a Lodge meeting last month where a petition had been accepted without signatures, and the Master was clearly about to start asking Brothers to sign. Luckily the members of the Lodge objected, and the Master re-thought his plan.
Great timing, as we have a committee meeting a petitioner this weekend.
I know for me personally, I want to ensure that we clearly communicate what our expectations are, and have a firm understanding of what he expects to receive from us…
Thank you for this. I think that it's really important, but often overlooked, for us to communicate our Lodge's expectations to our petitioners. How can they rise to meet our expectations, if we don't communicate our expectations?
But, taking it a bit further, I think that some Lodges don't have any expectations of their members, beyond paying the dues once a year. That needs to change, if a man seeks to be seen as a Mason, there should be expectations imposed upon him by his Lodge.
A lot of the issues with the last question has basically been solved with the BG check requirement.
Having said that, the investigating committee should not only ask the questions on the form, but also delve into what the potential candidate is looking for. Granted, this should have been ironed out during the six step process, but you should make sure they understand what's ahead of them, mainly time commitments and memorization.
So many men will simply tell you what you want to hear. I had one brother in the lodge, when presented with the opportunity to skip a chair, he literally jumped at the chance. When cautioned what the SD chair involved as far as memory work, he said "yeah yeah yeah, no problem". He later admitted it was a mistake and he underestimated just how much memory work was involved. We were a very active lodge with a lot of degrees, and he had to memorize a huge pile of ritual in a very short amount of time, like drinking from a firehose.
The BG check helps us weed out a criminal. That said I might well support the membership of a reformed/rehabilitated individual if he could clearly demonstrate that and was upfront about his past. I would expect that the lodge would know about that before receiving his petition.
Beyond that, there is a lot we should know about a potential brother that the BG check will not cover. We need to get to know these men before they petition, we should each ask ourselves:
1. Do I want to sit in lodge with this person? Is he a good fit for our lodge - are we a good match for him?
2. Would I support him as a future office of our lodge?
3. Would I be comfortable with him being around my wife and children, or the Jobies/Rainbow/DeMolay?
4. Is he really serious about becoming a mason and working in the craft?
Jumping a chair - though it is sometimes unaviodable - is a whole different can of worms. Maybe MWB Bailey will consider that a topic for discussion.
The inference of MW's last question was that the brother was bad enough to bring masonic charges against those brothers who completed the investigation, that they needed to be held accountable for reporting a full and favorable return in lodge. This is far different than a guy just not fitting in for whatever reason. Just sitting down and talking with the potential candidate will not always uncover character flaws. As I mentioned, I've been on more than a few investigating committees, and just about every one will tell you what you want to hear, well intentioned or not. I've had men tell me that memorizing stuff isn't a problem, that friday nights are fine, that the money isn't a hardship, etc etc etc. You can tell them that the craft isn't for men seeking a way to enrich themselves through networking and they will nod their head, knowing that is exactly what they want to do.
Eventually those men will be weeded out, either before the balloting, or after. Worst case is that we get to put on a few degrees.
Since starting the six steps program, I wonder if any attempt to analyze the results of retention has been attempted by GL to see if it has actually made much of a difference. It would be a bit difficult I would assume, since not all lodges follow the six steps completely which would potentially skew results.
But your questions you listed are excellent examples of what should be asked regardless.
A man whom no one knew wandered into a Lodge in my Jurisdiction, off the street without prior contact, and joined the Lodge for dinner. During that dinner, he indicated that he wanted to be a Mason.
After dinner, the Lodge asked him to remain in the dining room filling out a petition while they went upstairs and opened their Stated Meeting. He did so.
After Opening the Lodge, a Mason went down to the dining room and collected his petition. When that Mason returned to the Lodge room a couple minutes later, the Lodge read the petition.
The Master then assigned an investigation committee. Those Brothers excused themselves from the meeting, went down to the dining room and 'investigated' the petitioner.
They then returned to the Lodge Room, made a full and favorable report.
The Master then called for the petitioner to be balloted upon. That ballot was favorable.
Within a couple of weeks, the man was Initiated an Entered Apprentice Mason.
A couple of days after that, the Lodge figured out that he was a violent criminal, actually on the run from the authorities.
That was prior to my election as a Grand Lodge Officer.
A quite similar, although slightly less rushed, thing happened in another Lodge in my Jurisdiction shortly after.
In neither case was any action taken against any Brother who had signed the petitions without knowing the slightest thing about the men they were signing for, nor any Brother who had faked an investigation.
In my view, in those two cases, all twelve (three signers on each petition, three who faked each investigation) should have been suspended, if not expelled from Freemasonry. But hey, at least some of them remain honored members of our Craft today, at least one with a fancy title, and at least one other received a fancy award. And then we wonder why we are forced to hold so many Masonic trials.
I had a similar incident occur while visiting a nearby lodge, in that the entire process of voting in a plural member was done over the course of about 30 minutes, culminating with a hand vote to approve his petition.
With your example, the only person that should have been held accountable is the WM that let all that transpire. Of all people, he should have known better.
I don't disagree, but I will expand on the story just a touch, because I think it also has bearing on the situation.
The WM was basically Raised a Master Mason and then immediately put into the East. He was a brand spankin' new Mason. The Secretary was suffering from obviously severe mental decline.
Those two things said, there were experienced and competent Masons, familiar with our rules who participated in this farce.
The other Lodge mentioned, did have experienced Officers in control when their own farce went down.
I agree, I would support the Petition of a man who had done something wrong long ago, but was able to convince me that he had reformed. I do think that would require a lengthened process though.
I would also support the Petition of a man who was convicted of a felony crime, that I didn't believe to be a crime. Far too many things are criminalized in the United States.
Ultimately though, the most important question to my mind is:
Can I trust this man to watch my young granddaughters?
If not, if I wouldn't feel comfortable with him watching them if I had an emergency, then no, he is not suitable for the Degrees of Masonry.
I'm afraid that jumping chairs is something that I'm really familiar with.
As a brand spankin' new Mason I was installed Junior Steward, then Senior Steward the next year. Then I was installed Senior Deacon in a different Lodge, then Senior Warden but was actually the acting WM because the installed WM had a personal tragedy almost immediately following installation so wasn't able to be in the East for most of his year. So, I guess I jumped from SD to acting WM in a year.
And I suspect that you did a Great Job in each office. Some among us are capable of such feats - but not most of us.
Thank you Brother. I appreciate your confidence. But, I imagine I would have done better without all the jumping. Unfortunately, due to the situation in the Lodge, jumping was required.
I started out as Senior Steward due to an unexpected vacancy. Then I created one by joining the Navy and having to resign my office. It was the only real regret I had about joining the Navy and volunteering for the Submarine Service. That experience like DeMolay & Freemasonry have altered the course of my life in amazing and unexpected ways.
It's taken me all the intervening 40+ years to find convenient and welcoming lodges, and the TIME (I'm now retired) to get involved again. I am Really Enjoying it! Through all those years I remained Proud to be a Mason, wore my Masonic jewelry, paid my dues, and visited my home lodge when able.
You are right of course, people tell others what they think they want to hear. It's human nature.
I think that's the big benefit of something like the 'Six Step' process, or any other process that slows things down, and requires a lot of contact before a Petition is handed over. Because if that 'telling them what they want to hear' isn't true, it is hard to keep up over the long term. Eventually we have an opportunity to see the answer instead of just hearing it.
And I agree, 100%, we can't just rely upon whatever questions Grand Lodge suggests we ask. Those are suggestions, meant to be expanded upon by the Lodge to fit the unique circumstances of the Lodge.
As a lodge or group, we should, like with ritual, practice doing investigations. Asking questions, for some, is a difficult thing. Asking difficult questions can be next to impossible. Each lodge should create additional questions based on their lodge culture, expectations and activities. By “practicing” your investigations, everyone can be assured they’re being properly conducted and a negative action would never have to be taken or contemplated. If a WM selects Brothers to conduct an investigation, and they have no experience or understanding on the proper way an investigation should be conducted, then who is truly at fault?
Maybe a role play of a "good" and a "not so good" investigation would be a good Masonic Education topic. The lodge member could then comment and critique.
Great idea!
The idea of practicing investigations is something that never even crossed my mind, but certainly makes great sense. Thank you!
In my days in management at IBM, we trained by role played giving appraisals - both good and not so good ones. The experiences as both a role player and fly on the wall gave me a lot of useful insight into the process and peoples potential reactions. I think it could work with investigations too. We would never have someone going on their first one cold.
And as a small side benefit, it would make for an interesting Lodge meeting. I can see where some would really get into it.
The best “how to” I’ve ever seen is in the pages of the Masonic Restoration Foundation’s book “Traditional Observance Lodge Guide” from 2005. Eleven pages of instruction are devoted to a long process of assessing a petitioner.
One paragraph: “Investigations should be very thorough, usually taking at least 2 to 3 months following the time petition is submitted until the time it is voted upon. At least 6 to 8 hours should be spent with the candidate during the interview process. During the interviews with the candidate, serious questions should be asked that will enable the interviewer and subsequently the Lodge to make a judgment on the type of man being considered. The investigation process will determine if the candidate is a superficial person or one who has depth and whether he would make a good fit for this particular Lodge and Freemasonry in general.“
The interview process is especially useful, in that the MRF recommended three sets of questions that drive at the same goal but are paraphrased. For example:
First Interview-How do you define ethics?
Second Interview-What does the word morality mean to you?
Third Interview-What is virtue in your opinion?
If the brethren receive inconsistent answers, they can see the petitioner might not be well suited for our fraternity.
Jay
Some of this time can be the time spent with the potential candidate when he attends masonic activities: meals before meetings, trips or outings, attends lodge events. We must make a point to engage them when they do. We recently discussed welcoming committees...
Thank you for this, I really appreciate it.
The timing and process seems similar to the program that the GL of Washington suggests our Lodges follow, but in reverse.
In our suggested process there would be at least two or three months between the time the Lodge first met the man, and his being given a petition, with a number of activities taking place within those months, surely adding up to at least 6 or 8 hours. Probably significantly more hours if the process were fully followed. Then the petition can be given.
After that the interview process would begin, but would be much shorter than the pre-petition process.
The trouble, as I'm sure it is everywhere, is when Lodges don't bother with this, or any other meaningful process. Generally because they are desperate for members and don't realize that a single unsuitable member will drive suitable men away in droves.
I really like the three questions you include. Thank you!
Just like how the HR profession has fairly standardized procedures on conducting interviews, I think it behooves a lodge to have some standardized direction on conducting investigations. Especially on questions to ask referents. One question I have been making sure to always ask referents is: "is this person someone you would trust to take care of your kids/family in an emergency?"
>>>One question I have been making sure to always ask referents is: "is this person someone you >>>would trust to take care of your kids/family in an emergency?"
Thank you for this. I think that it cuts right to the heart of the matter. If I can't trust a man with my family, I can't trust him to be a Mason.
We have to remember that when we make a man a Mason, some people will really trust him, and he will be exposed to other people's children.
Years ago my Lodge convinced the Rainbow Girls to do a project, with the promised help of our Lodge members. They thought it sounded cool, so jumped on board.
I live closest of all our members to our Masonic Temple here in Centralia, so I went down early to open the place up, and get everything ready for the project. I was there, all alone.
It turned out that the parents of one of the girls were also really early. I'd never met either parent, nor had I met the girl. But, they just dropped her off. Without saying a word to me.
Would we trust a man, in a similar situation, is a really really important question to ask ourselves, and be confident in the answer we give ourselves. Because something like that could well happen.
Committees I have served on wanted to learn the man's expectations of us, we explained our expectations for him. We explained that there would be time spent in the lodge besides the meetings and that we expected them to visit lodges with a brother to learn as much as possible. We also discussed the financial expectations. We also discussed his preconceived ideas about Freemasonry. We also discussed family programs and concordant bodies. We even asked the wives for their expectations and what they thought they knew about our fraternity. As Secretary, I would run a criminal background check just to be sure.
Our lodge really embraced the six step program; we made sure they visited other lodges before they petitioned so that they were comfortable petitioning our lodge. They were strongly encouraged to attend ourThursday night gatherings at the lodge. We always had someone available to talk to them and introduce them. We where blessed to have WB Paul Casson in our lodge and he truly loved and looked after the craft.
I'm glad that you mentioned talking with the wives. In my view, it is vital, if a man has a wife or partner that we interview that person as well. We don't want to Initiate a man whose wife is against it.
I remember when I was investigated for the Degrees (mainly because the Brothers showed up hours late because they got totally lost trying to find my house deep in the woods) to my memory, those Brothers spent at least as much time talking with my wife as they did talking with me. That was a very good thing.
Well, thank God the investigating committee didn't listen to my wife. She asked "well, what if he isn't a good man?". Our marriage at that time was rocky at best, and she later apologized to me for trying to sabotage my investigation. We separated about a year later. Talking to the wife at times might give folks a bad impression that might be unwarranted.
Yep, that doesn't sound good at all. Sorry you had to go through that.
Another aspect we usually miss out on is when we recognize a potential candidate may not be a fit for our Lodge and it’s culture, we should steer him toward a Lodge that may be a better fit for him. This takes a little coordination and communication, but serves everyone involved in the end.
Excellent point! Just because a man isn't a good fit for our Lodge, doesn't mean that he might not be a great fit for some other Lodge!
In Seattle, most of the Lodges now encourage a potential Mason to visit all of the Lodges in the area before making his choice.
It helps of course that all of the Lodges are clustered together in north Seattle, so the distance between the various Temples is negligible. A plan like that probably wouldn't work in areas where Lodges are more spread out geographically.
I believe in secret investigation. No one knows the committee members. I like separate investigations at the prospect’s home to see a little of how he lives and also to speak with his significant other if he is with someone. I firmly believe in a longer process of joining to see him more and get to know him better if no one has met him or knows of him. We have had our crazies in the past and one time in came during the first degree with Stolen Valor case. You really have to make sure the prospect has no ulterior motives so you need to check his social media history and if he doesn’t share, that’s another red flag. This person is going to be your brother and that entails many rights and privileges. If they don’t have you as a guest at their home, then that’s another red flag. We all must trust each other in our homes and in our private lives. That’s brothers. I can call many brothers for help and I will give help, but if they will never reciprocate, then they’re not True brothers.
I agree completely that a proper investigation must include a trip to a man's home. A great deal about a man can be learned through a short visit like that.
I'm not sure that I like the idea of keeping the members of the committee secret from the Lodge though. There is at least one member of my Lodge who I think is a really great Mason, and who has done wonderful things for Masonry over a great many years, but I wouldn't trust him if he was doing an investigation. Let's just say, for the sake of my argument, that he can't see the bad in anyone.
The WM knows who is on the committee, but by keeping it secret, they each form their own opinion without any pressure from the rest of the lodge or the other committee members.
Interesting. I'll have to think about that some more. None of my Lodges have ever done it that way, so I've just never considered it.
Reading over the comments I agree and disagree with some. We have the standard questions within our investigation forms. I agree it should be a secret investigation, and the only ones that know are the Secretary and the WM. The six step process should be followed, and I believe at minimum 6 dinners should be attended prior to the man being given a petition. I also think that their mentor should be part of the investigation, they should know what they are getting into, and have a say as part of the investigation. We should also be talking to the signers of the petition; why did they sign? What do they see in the man that they would give their immediate okay signing a petition? All of the above was brought up by a Past Master, and I agree with it.
While Masonry needs members to grow and thrive, we also can't just let the West Gate be wide open for anyone.
I also believe the above process not only keeps current Brothers active and engaged, I think it would help the candidate understand the serious of which we take our Craft, and compel him to be active and engaged as well.
What are your thoughts?
>>>We should also be talking to the signers of the petition; why did they sign? What do they see >>>in the man that they would give their immediate okay signing a petition?
Yep, I think that this is really important.
Back when I was a brand spankin' Mason, many years ago, more than once I watched as a petition came in, with no signatures. The Lodge would then pass it around and Brothers would sign it.
Those were in the days before we started officially talking about and worrying about Guarding the West Gate here in Washington.
But, I haven't witnessed that happening for years. The lesson was learned.
I do though worry about backsliding. I was sitting in a Lodge meeting last month where a petition had been accepted without signatures, and the Master was clearly about to start asking Brothers to sign. Luckily the members of the Lodge objected, and the Master re-thought his plan.