Electioneering for Grand Lodge Office
Torence
Illinois FreeMasonry has long regarded “electioneering” as one of
those tempting distractions that run in antithesis to our principles.
Electioneering for office is strictly banned; and, if proven, carries
an automatic penalty of forfeiting the office. Falsely accusing a
“candidate” for office of electioneering, according to recently
revised Code 107, summarily subjects the accuser to masonic
discipline.
Does your jurisdiction have a similar restriction; and, if so, how
would you define specifically “electioneering?” When we ammended our
Code, we have introduced that a letter of intent from a ‘candidate’s”
home lodge can sent to each lodge announcing his candidacy, and a
short biography and photo is also published at our Annual
Communication.
In local lodge elections, nothing is allowed save the suggestion of
the name for office.
Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Senior Deacon - Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois
PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 1138, Lansing, Illinois
Robert Haber
news:81297faa-07a3-4862...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Columbia, Resolution No. 22 established “That any Brother wishing to be a
candidate for office in the elected line of Grand Lodge, with the exception
of those now holding elected offices, may submit his name to the Grand
Secretary…”. It goes on to explain, “This shall not be construed to be a
mandatory action for election. The Grand Secretary will make this list
available to all Lodges…” Under Decision 1 to that resolution dated 2002,
the Grand Master ruled,’ “campaigning for office continues to be prohibited.
No announcement other than in accordance with Standing Resolution No. 22
shall be made in open Lodge, nor shall any announcement be made in written
or electronic form. This tradition [of not campaigning] should not be
construed as prohibiting the candidate himself from seeking support by
approaching individuals privately and on a one-to-one or mouth to ear
basis.” In other words, organized electioneering is strictly prohibited,
but a candidate may ask individual Master Masons for their vote in the Grand
Lodge elections. This principle is followed in lodge elections in an
individual may submit his name in writing to the Secretary to be announce d
immediately prior to elections. Again, the electioneering policy is
identical to that of the Grand Lodge, i.e. mouth to ear requests only are
permitted. Violations of these policies are considered Masonic offenses and
are punishable in accordance with the Grand Lodge Code.
Fraternally,
Robert Haber, P.M.
Samuel Gompers-Benjamin Franklin Lodge No. 45. F.A.A.M., Washington, DC
Mike
> "Torence" <toren...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:81297faa-07a3-4862...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Electioneering for Office
>> Illinois FreeMasonry has long regarded “electioneering” as one of
>> those tempting distractions that run in antithesis to our principles.
>> Electioneering for office is strictly banned; and, if proven, carries
>> an automatic penalty of forfeiting the office. Falsely accusing a
>> “candidate” for office of electioneering, according to recently
>> revised Code 107, summarily subjects the accuser to masonic
>> discipline.
>> Does your jurisdiction have a similar restriction; and, if so, how
>> would you define specifically “electioneering?”
>
In Illinois, does that rule apply to the dead Brothers that are so
patriotic that they keep their voter cards current?
-LoL -just a joke. As they say in Chicago: Vote early, and vote often :-)
Torence
> Robert Haber wrote:
> > "Torence" <torence...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Only within the City limits of Chicago.
With our 2002 revisions, individuals can be announced at Masonic
events as running for this Grand Lodge Office or that and then may
speak, or otherwise partiicpate as such. Essentially, these Code
changes made it that a broad range of campaign activity has been made
safe as long as some other Brother than the candidate introduces them
as a candidate first.
IMHO, politicking departs from the original plan of FreeMasonry.
Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Senior Deacon - Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois
PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois
Doug Freyburger
>
> IMHO, politicking departs from the original plan of FreeMasonry.
Which is strange as a recent GM in Illinois was so unpopular
he got voted out of office after one year with the Illinois
tradition being two years in office per GM. Strange in that
electioneering within GL both is and isn't partisan politics
and thus straddles the line of Masonic principles.
That the last GL there were 3 candidates for Junior Grand
Deacon for entry into the traditional grand line for the
jurisdiction. The only campaigning I read was a brief mention
at a district meeting less than a month before that someone
local was going to throw his hat in the ring.
Unknown
"Torence" <toren...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:81297faa-07a3-4862...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Electioneering for Office
> Illinois FreeMasonry has long regarded "electioneering" as one of
> those tempting distractions that run in antithesis to our principles.
You mean your GL has elected officers?
We used to elect a G. Treasurer and members of a Board of General Purposes
(at least London brethren got a direct vote - Provincial members had a more
convoluted procedure).
Now we don't elect any of them. Grand Lodge agreed changes such that all of
these are now appointed.
We still elect the GM though ..... HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent is
nominated every December quarterly comunication and elected in the following
March quarterly communication.
Suffice it to say, that the only elected offices in UGLE are the Grand
Master and the Treasurers of Metropolitan, Provincial and District Grand
Lodges.
Auditors are elected, but they are not officers.
> Electioneering for office is strictly banned; and, if proven, carries
> an automatic penalty of forfeiting the office. Falsely accusing a
> "candidate" for office of electioneering, according to recently
> revised Code 107, summarily subjects the accuser to masonic
> discipline.
Not really much need for that ..... though it could happen in theory inside
a lodge (eg. for the election of a Master). I haven't ever hear of any
overt electioneering ever happening.
Torence
>. �Strange in that
> electioneering within GL both is and isn't partisan politics
> and thus straddles the line of Masonic principles.
Over the years, you might be surprised to learn, there have been a
variety of schemes in Illinois proposed to alter the traditional
voting of the sitting Master and Wardens to some other process. Within
the decade after their creation, District Deputies were suggested to
replace Masters and Wardens at Grand Lodge and act as an electoral
college to select Grand Line Officers. Similarly, when the itinerant
lecturers were organized into Grand Lecturers and later the Board of
Grand Examiners, asurances had to be given that they would never
become a college for Grand Lodge Officers.
In the 20th Century, those commitments were somehow set aside; and
now Grand Line Officers come exclusively from that Board. The change
fundamentally altered the caliber of material entering Grand Line as
the elcted Offiers work more in the ceremonial labor, leaving too
much, IMHO, of the executive functions to be unduly decided by out of
office Past Grand Masters. Better in mind that we elect, at least on
occasion, from the sitting Masters and Wardens, or even Past Masters
of Local Lodges to mix things up a bit in line.
>Which is strange as a recent GM in Illinois was so unpopular
he got voted out of office after one year with the Illinois
tradition being two years in office per GM.
More than one GM in our Masonic lifetime, W. Bro. Freyburger, had
that rude shock as they expect that during their year as GM they can
introduce dramatic change or otherwise tread on landmarks that predate
the formation of Grand Lodges themselves.. Operationally a foundation
has to be laid long before entering Grand Line; and having the Board
act as a school for Grand Line Officers, IMHO, introduces too many
dristractions and permits the political shenanigans that have always
been abhorred..
As you have seen for yourself, the time in Grand Communication
continues to be made so short, and orchestrated beforehand, that some
Grand Lines works to harshly so that questions are already decided
before the sound of the first gavel.
For the 21st century, IMHO, the sitting Masters and Wardens need to
not go to Grand Lodge so lazy as before. Our gerneration know the
issues and can best direct future Grand Lines if we restore the
election procedure closer to teh original plan of FreeMasonry.
Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Senior Deacon - Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois
PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 1138, Lansing, Illinois
Doug Freyburger
>
> You mean your GL has elected officers?
It's common for lodges in the US to elect WM, SW, JW,
SE and TR. It's not uncommon for local by laws to add
more - My Illinois lodge elects SD also.
To mirror this it's common for US GLs to elect GM, DGM,
SGW, JGW, GSec, GTr plus a variable number of other
officers.
> Now we don't elect any of them. Grand Lodge agreed changes such that all of
> these are now appointed.
What if your GL starts heading in a direction you consider
unacceptable? It reduces your options of how to handle
that. As Bro Torrance has discussed Illinois AF&AM has
a juridicational tradition of GMs serving two years yet in
living memory some took actions so unpopular they got
elected out of office.
With GLs being independent the mechanism of withdrawing
recognition offers a partial veto on GL policies from the
outside. With elections there is a partial veto on GL
policies from the inside. Belt and suspenders approach.
Jim Bennie
news:73b9a0e3-31ce-423e...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> That the last GL there were 3 candidates for Junior Grand
> Deacon for entry into the traditional grand line for the
> jurisdiction. The only campaigning I read was a brief mention
> at a district meeting less than a month before that someone
> local was going to throw his hat in the ring.
In B.C., nomination forms are due into the Grand Lodge office by a certain
date and must be signed by two members of Grand Lodge. Their names and
Masonic credentials (which these days tends to include concordant bodies)
are then circulated to be read in open Lodge. Their names and photos have
been, for a number of years, placed in the Grand Lodge Bulletin, but this is
an editorial decision,
As of last year, candidates are supposed to give a five minute address to
Grand Lodge prior to the vote.
Jim Bennie
BC & Yukon
Larry The Mason from Holbrook
> Electioneering for Office
This was a subject discussed in Oregon at both last year's Annual
Grand Communication and at several Occasional Grand Lodges since
then. It is referred to as politicking here, but it generally means
the same and carries similar penalties. If one announces in open
Lodge that he would serve in an office if elected, or makes it known
that he is eligible to hold the office, that's referred to as
standing, and is permitted. But if he does any kind of campaigning,
making promises that he would keep if elected, that's politicking and
not permitted.
Fraternally,
Larry W, WM
Holbrook #30 AF&AM
Forest Grove, Oregon
Torence
lodges along with proposed by-law and constitutional provisions as
long as the candidate has forwarded this material to the Grand
Secretary ninety days before our GL communication. The photo strikes
me as an odd component, unless, of course, the intent was to elect
officers that were prettier than previous Grand Lines.
Just about all the previously denied activity has been allowed
since these changes were made including wining and dining candidates,
the divisive organizing of support for one or another, etc., all the
back room mutterings that only cloud issues and can lead to a ruckus.
As long as the candidate refrains from suggesting his own name or
introducing himself as a choice for office, few seem to be aware that
this activity risks the complexion and reputation of our fraternity.
Just a couple of years ago, for instance, blank colored buttons, white
and blue, were handed out at Grand Lodge to show support for one
choice or another.
Speeches such as are described by Brother Larry from Oregon,
thankfully, remain prohibited by our Code 105. Seems to me that those
up for office at each session are those that are already familiar
tothe Craft having done more work than most. A Mason’s good reputation
should afford satisfactory assurance; and his singular vote plenty of
voice if a representative of his Local Lodge, IMHO. Why the unseemly
currying and jockeying is needed is beyond me. Perhaps a suggestion
from outside the traditional sources for office from time to time
would improve the process.
Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Senior Deacon – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
PM –Arcadia lodge No. 1138, Lansing, Illinois
Larry W
> Speeches such as are described by Brother Larry from Oregon,
> thankfully, remain prohibited by our Code 105.
When a Mason stands for an office, whether it be an elected officer of
the Lodge or Grand Lodge or an elected member of a committee, he is
doing nothing more than making it known to the craft that he would
accept if elected. He isn't making a speech, he isn't trying to sway
voters. He isn't campaigning and I believe if you read closer your code
105 you would agree that standing for office is not prohibited.
If it is prohibited I feel sorry for those who must ballot over and over
until they find a man willing, eligible and able to accept his election
to any office or committee. Such doesn't seem conducive to harmony, IMHO.
Fraternally,
Larry W, WM
Holbrook #30, AF&AM
Forest Grove, Oregon
Larry The Mason from Holbrook
doesn't appear to understand moderated groups very well. Moderators,
if you suddenly find a flood of my replies, please reject all but
one. Thanks.
On Jun 3, 5:21 pm, Torence <torence...@aol.com> wrote:
> Speeches such as are described by Brother Larry from Oregon,
> thankfully, remain prohibited by our Code 105.
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. We don't make speeches
because they are prohibited in Oregon.
> Seems to me that those
> up for office at each session are those that are already familiar
> tothe Craft having done more work than most.
There are positions for which there is no obvious successor, such as
Secretary, Treasurer or certain committee memberships. In those
situations it is possible to have one nominee for each voter or,
worse, a clear winner who is for whatever reason unable or unwilling
to accept. Repeating this until someone is elected who is willing to
accept doesn't seem to me to be in the best interest of the Lodge or a
factor in maintaining harmony therein. However, should one or more
Brothers announce beforehand that they would be willing to accept an
election then the number of nominees who are likely to accept is known
and the number of unsuccessful elections reduced considerably.