I was reading on another forum the pros and cons concerning telling petitioners as to why they were denied (or blackballed) . This got me thinking about it , but before I state what I think , where does everyone else stand on this ? ON TOPIC PLEASE . (just wanted to be the first )
I'm following the same thread on that other forum. I can see both sides of the issue. What it comes down to is my Obligation. I swore to obey the rules of Masonry as they are revealed to me. The GL of MA seems to say the ballot and the reasons for tossing the black "ball" (actually a cube) are secret. No matter how I feel about it, I am bound to obey that rule and not even seek the answer for myself. If it got that far, the WM and Secretary should already know why and are dealing with the issue. I have to trust the wisdom of those who came before me.
I believe if it doesnt make it past the IC, they should let the Brothers who signed the petition know why he is not being recommended and if they wish to let him know that is their business....if he doesnt pass the vote....then it is simply a letter from the Sec letting him know he was not selected and leave it at that. BTW...I too have been following the same thread.
I always thought it was strange that so many of us use the term "blackballed" when it is, in fact, a cube. But oh well. The reasons a petitioner's request is denied can be a serious matter. And I feel it is proper not to disclose it to prevent unintended gossip or inadvertently maligning the character of a man who may have made mistakes but has corrected them. He may have a felony in his past that bars him from joining the Order but is a different person now. It serves nothing to make that reason known to more people than need to know. If the 1st and 2nd line signer do their due diligence before the petition is ever placed in the person's hand it should hopefully never get that far.
Using the term Balckball is just a matter of habit as I have been using the term long before I was a Freemason . I do not mean that whom ever thrown a black cube should tell the lodge members , but if the petitioner has the right to know why he was denied . Sorry if I was not more clear .
In Wisconsin, any Brother who votes no has 24 or 48 hours to inform the WM as to why they voted negatively. If the WM deems the reason sufficient then the ballot is not clear. I still think the petitioner should only recieve notice that they were not elected and not a specific reason.
We have no such rule . All ballots are secret and not even the Grand Master himself has the right to ask why a member cast a negative vote . But I like this idea because it would do away with some who cast negative votes because they dislike someone who has signed a petition or has beef with the lodge and is taking it out on them at the ballot box . This does not happen very often , but it does happen . But I agree , the petitioner should only receive a notice of the yeah or nay vote and not the reason why . But some think differently , and I would like to hear from them as to why they think a petitioner has the right to know .
Not much of a secret Coach, when you can go to any Masonic supply store and buy them. LOL Apparently we use cubes in the US and the still use balls oversees. Ballot cubes -and- Ballot Balls
There will be no discussion regarding a blackballed candidate in Minnesota, or one will quickly become an ex-mason. (d) To discuss the character or the merits or demerits of a petitioner, either for degrees or membership, in a Lodge convened or, after rejection, to express regret at the action taken, or how he or anyone voted upon the ballot. A violation of paragraph (d) shall require immediate charges filed with the Master and, if found guilty, the penalty shall be expulsion and no other. GENERAL REGULATIONS 38 March 28, 2009 Whenever a petition either for degrees or membership is rejected by a vote of the Lodge, paragraph (d) of Section G6.03 of this Article shall immediately be read to the Lodge, in an audible voice, as a warning.
According to the Code of the Grand Lodge of Wisconsin, Chapter 71 71.13 Master’s Authority if Reballot Not Clear. If the re‐ballot is not clear, the Master shall declare that accountability for the casting of the negative vote shall be required in order for the applicant to be rejected. The Master shall then state that any member who has cast a negative vote shall within 48 hours identify himself to the Master and inform the Master that such member has cast a negative vote and state the reasons therefore. 1) If the Master shall be timely informed by a member that he has cast a negative vote and the Masonic reasons therefore, the Master shall refer said reasons to the Grand Master in writing. Upon receipt the Grand Master will determine the legality of the reasons in accordance with the Masonic Code and respond to the Master in writing of his decision. The Master shall, at the next stated communication of the Lodge declare that he has received accounting from a member on the negative vote cast against the applicant and of the decision of the Grand Master. Neither the identity of the member casting the negative vote nor the reasons therefore shall be disclosed. The Master shall then declare that the petition has been either accepted or rejected based on the decision of the Grand Master. 2) If the Master shall not have been timely informed by any member that the member has cast a negative vote and the reasons therefore, the Master shall at the next stated communication of the Lodge, declare that the petition has been accepted.
Ohio Masonic Code Section 26.01(d) In balloting for a candidate individually, should only one black ball or cube appear, the Master shall immediately order a second ballot for that candidate, and if one or more black balls or cubes still appear the candidate shall be declared rejected. Section 26.04(b) In the case of rejection of a candidate for the degrees, or for affiliation, no member shall be permitted to state how he voted. Section 26.04(d) Balloting for degrees or membership shall be secret and all members present shall vote.
To me, this would nullify the use of anonymous voting.... I feel a Brothers vote is private....what if the WM had signed the petition and was now mad, talk about a potential bad scene.....BUT hey, That is the rules of the GL of WI and I respect their stance.
Thankfully, I have never seen the situation in all my years in Masonry. I never had a problem asking a Brother if maybe Masonry wasn't the best organization for his friend.
Proper Guarding of the West Gate is where the potential problems should be caught....Brothers signing a petition should know beyond a shadow of a doubt the candidate will pass the vote before they even sign the petition.....IMHO, the IC is the second layer of defense out side the West Gate.....
I've only been a Mason for 3 years, but in that time, we've never blackballed a candidate. We had one who was convinced by the the IC that he should withdraw his petition (felon with domestic assault, apparently he had choked the heck out of his gf). Anyone who has been a first line signer during these years has appeared to take it very seriously, and done their homework, except in the one stated case.
I have seen a few blackballed (not only in my lodge mind you) some rightfully , some out of spite (someone in lodge did not like the brother who recommended the petitioner or is mad at the lodge ) . This is why I kinda of like Winter's jurisdictions rule of providing a reason to the Master .
