Job's Daughters in Texas
Paul Zentmyer
Daughters bethels to meet in the lodges that are sponsoring them. It is my
understanding that the reason is that the bethels cannot meet in the lodges
until there is a child protection policy in place for the organization. Does
anyone know anything about this? I would be grateful for any and all
information.
Thanks in advance.
Paul Zentmyer, PM
Great Bridge Lodge 257
Chesapeake, VA
--
Travel safely and go with the knowledge that you are important to someone's
life.
David Foster
> I have recently heard that the GL Texas is refusing to allow the Job's
> Daughters bethels to meet in the lodges that are sponsoring them. It is my
> understanding that the reason is that the bethels cannot meet in the lodges
> until there is a child protection policy in place for the organization. Does
> anyone know anything about this? I would be grateful for any and all
> information.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Paul Zentmyer, PM
> Great Bridge Lodge 257
> Chesapeake, VA
>
>
administration of Job's Daughters just refused to comply to the standards
we set. In fact, this is a problem that our Grand Masters have had to deal
with over a period of several years. There was some debate on the floor of
Grand Lodge about it, but at the recommendation of the Grand Master, we
voted to disassociate from Job's Daughters as long as they maintained their
current policy. It was admitted that Job's Daughters had made some strides
to improve their policies, but were still short of the necessary
compliance. It is my opinion, however, that now that they have been
disciplined, they'll spend the coming year getting their house in order. I
expect that next year we'll see them in complete compliance and ready to
request that we rescend this year's action. The sad part of it all is that
the kids are the ones who have to suffer. We have nothing agaist the
girls, it's the lack of efficient administration that we are having to deal
with.
David Foster, PM
Torence
background checks for their youth leadership. Since when, in our
organization, is being a Master Mason not good enough evidence of
integrity? I prefer Grand Lodge leadership to not "often try" our
members. It is un-American to presume guilt instead of innocence and I
do not appreciate the fascist flavor of these bible belt
interrogatories.
Torence Evans Ake
Senior Warden
Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois
PM Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois
Jack Wise
It is a proactive measure taken by the GL in order to provide a legal
defense against lawsuits as well as to provide an additional layer of
protection for the youth.
While we as members of the Fraternity may be willing to accept all
Brethren as worthy and upstanding individuals, the U.S. legal system
does not. There have been civil lawsuits alleging that youth leaders
have engaged in actionable activities. Grand Lodges must do all within
their power to show that they have taken every possible step to protect
the youth.
--
Jack Wise
Secretary, Oak Wood Lodge No. 1444, AF & AM, The Woodlands, TX
(www.txmason.com) ( Lodge E-Mail: oakwo...@hal-pc.org )
PM, Jacques DeMolay Lodge No. 1390, AF & AM, Houston, TX
( www.jd1390.org/jdmlodge.htm )
TEXAS red wine: renowned for its smoky-mesquite-bbq & jalapeno
overtones, the perfect foil for a meal of tacos and refried beans...
Jim Bennie
> I do not know where the Grand Lodge of Texas gets off insisting on
> background checks for their youth leadership. Since when, in our
> organization, is being a Master Mason not good enough evidence of
> integrity? I prefer Grand Lodge leadership to not "often try" our
> members. It is un-American to presume guilt instead of innocence and I
> do not appreciate the fascist flavor of these bible belt
> interrogatories.
Is there ANYTHING about subduing passions in the Illinois
ceremonies?
Some of the youth organisations enacted legislation requiring checks,
all on their own. DeMolay certainly has for a number of years. Are
they "fascist" too?
Good grief.
Jim Bennie
PMC Chev RD, etc.
David Foster
tact, but I'll let that go. GL Texas has plenty of reason to put
safeguards in place when it comes to the safety of children. Any
organization needs to have such programs in place, if for no other reason
than to protect themselves from unwarranted litigation. The church I go to
has such programs. Our Bishop calls it 'Safe Sanctuary.' Boy Scouts have
it. Girl Scouts have it. DeMolay has it. Rainbow has it. All we are
asking is that Job's Daughters gets with the program and structures itself
as an organization of the 21st Century. When it comes to the safety of
children, we can't do too much for their protection. In these crazy times,
we need to be extra cautious. That doesn't seem to be asking too much, to me.
David Foster
mgo_...@comcast.net
> Torence wrote:
>> I do not know where the Grand Lodge of Texas gets off insisting on
>> background checks for their youth leadership. Since when, in our
>> organization, is being a Master Mason not good enough evidence of
>> integrity? I prefer Grand Lodge leadership to not "often try" our
>> members. It is un-American to presume guilt instead of innocence and I
>> do not appreciate the fascist flavor of these bible belt
>> interrogatories.
>>
>> Torence Evans Ake
>> Senior Warden
>> Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois
>> PM Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois
>>
>
> It is a proactive measure taken by the GL in order to provide a legal
> defense against lawsuits as well as to provide an additional layer of
> protection for the youth.
>
> While we as members of the Fraternity may be willing to accept all
> Brethren as worthy and upstanding individuals, the U.S. legal system
> does not. There have been civil lawsuits alleging that youth leaders
> have engaged in actionable activities. Grand Lodges must do all within
> their power to show that they have taken every possible step to protect
> the youth.
>
DeMolay Dad when an edict came down that all adults working with DeMolay
must be subjected to a criminal background check, a credit check and (if
I remember correctly) a fingerprint check. My immediate reaction was;
"What part of 'volunteer' don't they understand?" While I enjoyed
working with the boys and building character in youth, I stood on
principle. I stopped being a DeMolay Dad.
Patrick C. Kansoer Sr. PM
Treasurer/historian
Loyal Lodge No. 1007 AF&AM
Skokie, IL USA
rlw
provide added protection against known pedophiles from involving themselves
with Masonic Youth. Yes, it is one more hoop we have to jump through as
youth advisors, but we do it for the young people.
Richard Watson
Advisory Council Chairman
Peninsula Chapter, Oregon DeMolay
-----Original Message-----
From: sof-mail...@mail.cybermango.org
[mailto:sof-mail...@mail.cybermango.org] On Behalf Of Torence
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 5:23 AM
To: sof-...@mail.cybermango.org
Subject: Re: [sof] Job's Daughters in Texas
I do not know where the Grand Lodge of Texas gets off insisting on
background checks for their youth leadership. Since when, in our
organization, is being a Master Mason not good enough evidence of
integrity? I prefer Grand Lodge leadership to not "often try" our
members. It is un-American to presume guilt instead of innocence and I
do not appreciate the fascist flavor of these bible belt
interrogatories.
Torence Evans Ake
Senior Warden
Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois
PM Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois
_______________________________________________
Sof-mail mailing list
Sof-...@mail.cybermango.org
http://mail.cybermango.org/mailman/listinfo/sof-mail
lar...@holbrookmasons.org
> My immediate reaction was;
> "What part of 'volunteer' don't they understand?" While I enjoyed
> working with the boys and building character in youth, I stood on
> principle. I stopped being a DeMolay Dad.
But what kind of lesson do you think you taught the boys by that
action? Was it the lesson you intended?
S&F
Larry W
Holbrook #30 AF&AM
Forest Grove, OR
Council Chairman
Pacific Chapter DeMolay
Forest Grove, OR
Rainbow Dad
Hillsboro Assembly #24, IORG
Hillsboro, OR
Perplexed Seal
> I do not know where the Grand Lodge of Texas gets off insisting on
> background checks for their youth leadership. Since when, in our
> organization, is being a Master Mason not good enough evidence of
> integrity? I prefer Grand Lodge leadership to not "often try" our
> members. It is un-American to presume guilt instead of innocence and I
> do not appreciate the fascist flavor of these bible belt
> interrogatories.
Unless you're doing the US equivalent of a Criminal Records Bureau check
as part of the enquiry process to join the craft then I'm fairly sure
that there will be duty of care issues, insurance issues with just
saying ''well he's a MM so it'll be alright then''.
And equally I'm sure that your GL, as all the others, will spend some of
the time expelling members for some form of criminal offence.
The GL leaves itself exposed to legal challenge if it doesn't insist on
regulating those it provides facilities to.
Regards
Alistair
Doug Freyburger
> mgo_...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > My immediate reaction was;
> > "What part of 'volunteer' don't they understand?" While I enjoyed
> > working with the boys and building character in youth, I stood on
> > principle. I stopped being a DeMolay Dad.
>
> But what kind of lesson do you think you taught the boys by that
> action? Was it the lesson you intended?
I can think of a list of lessons -
When you object to something on principle you have a range of
options that range from putting up with it through avoiding contact
through fighting for reform. When the feelings of others would
tend to get hurt, avoiding contact can be the kinder choice.
When you're an organization that depends on volunteers, policies
you make will interfere with some of those volunteers.
When dealing with others, stances of principle matter.
Rules, laws, morals, they are all different principles. Speeding
5 MPH over the limit may be illegal but it's not immoral.
There are situations in life where our principles come into conflict.
One such situation is "innocent until proven guilty" and "safety
of our children is paramount" and for that matter "people are
imperfect, including the ones doing background checks". Even
that jingle of stokerbrokers "past performance is not a guarantee
of future performance" so active supervision and teamwork beat
any background check.
What a society rewards is what a society gets, even if the result
is not what's intended. Set up a system that requires adherence
to one principle even when it is in conflict with another principle
and the folks you are rewarding are the ones who are more
interested in following the rules than being living examples of
how to live by your principles.
Fraternal regards,
Doug Freyburger
WM 2007 Arlington Heights 1162 Illinois AF&AM
PM 1999 Pasadena 272 Califonia F&AM
Torence
the Texas approach well. Having met Brother Doug recently at our
Installation of Officers, I must note to the group that he is much more
gentlemanly then anything that I could Master. That is useful to note,
of course, if you cannot already tell by my posts.
As far as subduing the passions, IMHO, that is excellent advice for
Apprentices; but Master Mason's should pay more attention to the
necessity of giving a Brother due and timely notice to ward off
appraoching. danger. I apologize to the group that Google does not
offer a "whisper" font. On the issue of caring for our children, 21st
Century rational thought is well understood, active and doing fine in
Chicago. However, our Texas Brothers seem to be looking to Seventeenth
Century Salem, Massachusettes for their legal advice.
All I know is that whenever Bible Belt Leadership wishes the rest of
the Country to go along with setting aside the Bill of Rights to
infringe on individual's civil liberties, the best argument that they
have to proffer is "Think of the Children." In Illinois, we are
unfamiliar with any litmus test being sold that will give any
indication of depths or heights of anyone's potential behavior. We are
also not so lazy as to try to outsource care for the youths in our
groups, to scouting or other clubs. If any among us were to harbor
paranoid thoughts about Pedophiles, Sasquatch or the Lake Gitchigummy
Sea Monster harming the Teenagers who join our clubs, we do something
crazy like coming out and join them at their meetings and introduce
ourselves to the Volunteer Leaders.
If your Grand Line Officers, or Individual members genuinely care and
think that this generation of Teenagers are not worldly or savy enough
to immediately tell on a wrongdoer, then there is a better method to
manifest your concern.
P.S. Screw the lawyers.
Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Senior Warden - Auburn Park Lodge No,. 789 - Crete, Illinois
David Foster
> Both Brothers Konsoer & Freyburger illustrated the foolhardiness of
> snip
> paranoid thoughts about Pedophiles, Sasquatch or the Lake Gitchigummy
> snippity snippity
>
Brother Torence,
Evidently your GL hasn't been slapped with a huge law suit yet. Let me
assure that once you've been burned, a certain amount of paranoia is very
appropriate.
David Foster
rlw
responsibilities and exercising due diligence when it comes to youth
protection. Master Masons have made inappropriate advances toward our youth.
These have been real, not imaginary and the most serious have led to
expulsion of some Masons by Grand Lodges. While being a Mason, a priest, a
teacher, or a Scouter may indicate a person's higher moral standing, it is
not guaranteed. The background checks validate the veracity of a person's
fitness for working with youth.
It is not a "guilty until proven innocent" process - anymore than a
background check to become teacher, police officer, IRS Agent (ugh), et
cetera, et cetera.
Richard Watson, WM
Research Lodge of Oregon No. 198
-----Original Message-----
From: sof-mail...@mail.cybermango.org
[mailto:sof-mail...@mail.cybermango.org] On Behalf Of David Foster
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 7:10 AM
To: sof-...@mail.cybermango.org
Subject: Re: [sof] Job's Daughters in Texas
Torence wrote:
_______________________________________________
Torence
happenstances to chance. Whole Lodges get involved with their youth
groups so that no volunteer shoulders the burden singularly or operates
in a vaccuum.
> Actually, I would call it, not paranoia, but meeting our fiduciary responsibilities and exercising due diligence when it comes to youth protection.
spend the former than the latter.
> Master Masons have made inappropriate advances toward our youth. These have been real, not imaginary and the most serious have led to expulsion of some Masons by Grand Lodges. While being a Mason, a priest, a teacher, or a Scouter may indicate a person's higher moral standing, it is not guaranteed. The background checks validate the veracity of a person's fitness for working with youth.
the application through my Ouija Board, if you are willing take the fee
that you are spending on these "Background Checks" and donate them to
the Illinois Bethel Chapter that meets in Crete. Someone is further
victimizing your youth by taking money better spent to host and improve
their events in order to sell the idle aged a panacea about enhanced
security and false protection.
Really, your Brothers should just show up more often and save yhr
groups from this unnecessary and meaningless expense.
> It is not a "guilty until proven innocent" process - anymore than a background check to become teacher, police officer, IRS Agent (ugh), et cetera, et cetera.
proven vaild.
Suit yourselves.
Fraternally... Poking and Nudging...
Torence Evans Ake
Senior Warden
Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois
Doug Freyburger
>
> Unless you're doing the US equivalent of a Criminal Records Bureau check
> as part of the enquiry process to join the craft then I'm fairly sure
> that there will be duty of care issues, insurance issues with just
> saying ''well he's a MM so it'll be alright then''.
California response - The petition has forms to be signed that allow
exactly such a check. I've never heard of a lodge doing such a
check and I've heard it claimed that none ever have, but the
candidate has to be willing.
> And equally I'm sure that your GL, as all the others, will spend some of
> the time expelling members for some form of criminal offence.
Sadly true. It's a topic on nearly every GL agenda to discuss
explusions or applied-for reinstatements dealing with criminal
matter.
> The GL leaves itself exposed to legal challenge if it doesn't insist on
> regulating those it provides facilities to.
Note that I have not stated that I agree with Br Torrance nor that I
agree with the Texas Gl's stance. The problem is I agree with both
stances and it's an internal conflict within myself.
My biggest problem is first offenders or folks not detected by
backgroupnd checks. Background checks can and usually but
not always will reject repeat offenders, but only team involvement
can handle first offenders. How many historical problems would
have been detected with background checks and how many not?
Fraternal regards,
Doug Freyburger
WM 2007 Arlington Heights 1162 Illinois AF&AM
PM 1999 Pasadena 272 California F&AM
Mike S
submit to a background check? I plead ingnorance in this matter.
Mike S.
Perplexed Seal
>> Evidently your GL hasn't been slapped with a huge law suit yet. Let me assure that once you've been burned, a certain amount of paranoia is very appropriate.
> Illinois Lodges hosting youth groups do not leave such potential
> happenstances to chance. Whole Lodges get involved with their youth
> groups so that no volunteer shoulders the burden singularly or operates
> in a vaccuum.
From an organisational perspective that approach still bears risk,
clearly the risk to individual minors from individuals is reduced, but
the risk of the provision of either inadvertent or intentional alibi is
increased. The organisation should make a decision about which risk
it's more prepared to accept in an informed manner.
>> Actually, I would call it, not paranoia, but meeting our fiduciary responsibilities and exercising due diligence when it comes to youth protection.
> The old adage states "time is money." We find it much more fun to
> spend the former than the latter.
Without a formal process in place to assure that the organisations
responsibilities have been exercised then there is still significant
potential to spend a lot more money after the fact. With the attendant
bad publicity of a failure.
>> Master Masons have made inappropriate advances toward our youth. These have been real, not imaginary and the most serious have led to expulsion of some Masons by Grand Lodges. While being a Mason, a priest, a teacher, or a Scouter may indicate a person's higher moral standing, it is not guaranteed. The background checks validate the veracity of a person's fitness for working with youth.
> So what service do you hire to guarantee fidelity? I will gladly run
> the application through my Ouija Board, if you are willing take the fee
> that you are spending on these "Background Checks" and donate them to
> the Illinois Bethel Chapter that meets in Crete. Someone is further
> victimizing your youth by taking money better spent to host and improve
> their events in order to sell the idle aged a panacea about enhanced
> security and false protection.
It's not a question of guarantee, it's a question of risk management:
By going through the process you 'reduce the risk' of allowing
inappropriate access.
You ''reduce the risk'' of being found at fault should someone
inappropriate get through the checks, by transferring that risk to your
service provider (never do these checks in house)
You ''reduce the risk'' of bringing your own GL into disrepute, and
inevitably Freemasonry as a whole, by exercising the Duty of Care which
you hold as an organisation providing a service to these minors.
You also protect your representatives from the risk of frivolous or
malicious accusations of inappropriate conduct by demonstrating that
they have gone through a level of check prior to being permitted access
> Really, your Brothers should just show up more often and save yhr
> groups from this unnecessary and meaningless expense.
Of course the other side of the coin is that by improving efficiency
then a given body of individuals can provide a higher level of service.
Here in the UK it's become mandatory for most youth leaders to have a
Criminal Record Bureau check, which costs the organisation the
equivalent of about $500-$600, annually. It's required for legislative
reasons and clearly insurance will not cover an organisation if it's not
been done. Together with other constraints there are limitations on the
number of minors per adult.
>> It is not a "guilty until proven innocent" process - anymore than a background check to become teacher, police officer, IRS Agent (ugh), et cetera, et cetera.
> Uh Huh, and we all have seen in the news how those qualifiers have
> proven vaild.
Systems fail, sometimes more than others. People are fallible, but it's
a risk management issue, not an absolute. Anyone who does see it as a
panacea is naive and foolish (or some readers of the tabloid hacks).
Personally I object to being photographed, fingerprinted and treated
like a criminal every time I enter the US, but I have to put up with it.
Alistair
PM, ADC, Charity Steward Hants &IoW, UGLE
Perplexed Seal
> Does a man who has nothing to hide have any good reason to not be willing to
> submit to a background check? I plead ingnorance in this matter.
I think there are two aspects to that and recognise that it's a common
response to the creeping increases in the involvement of the state in
the personal lives of it's individual members. If one has nothing to be
ashamed of then why not allow any tom, dick or harry employed by the
state organisation access increasing volumes of data on ones movements,
shopping habits, diet, exercise, choice of reading matter etc.
However, to deal with the point itself I can agree that if one has
nothing to fear then one should be content in an otherwise perfect
society to have ones background checked into. Indeed in my occupation I
have had my background checked into in an extremely intrusive manner,
far beyond where the checks in question go and at considerable expense
to my employer. However if I were to be working with children or
vulnerable adults, as applied in the UK, I would still have to undergo
the checks. That in itself is slightly ridiculous, but such is the mind
of the risk averse who came up with this cunning scheme.
Notwithstanding that I do rather have sympathy for the position of Bro
Pat, having made a principled decision, and Bro Torence in recognising
that one can put in place process and procedural methods to improve the
protection of the minors being provided for by the craft. I object to
being treated as a criminal, we used to have this quaint tradition of
innocence until proven guilty, that seems to have become guilty until
proven guilty of something.
There is also the personal issue of protection of oneself and ones
information. In using external providers to conduct the checks, these
firms will become custodians of large volumes of personal information
about a range of individuals. That information becomes a valuable
commodity with some considerable resale value, it just takes one
underpaid clerk to sell that information to an unscrupulous buyer to
undermine the integrity of the whole process. How much do we trust the
provider? I don't trust the Data Protection regime here in the UK and
I'm aware that in the US it is somewhat less constrained.
There is also the issue of mistaken identity in these checks. Given the
volume of checks being conducted in the UK, all teachers, school
workers, most youth leaders, clergy, doctors, nurses etc there is bound
to be a level of false positives affecting some several hundreds, if not
low thousands of people. Given the hysteria over child protection
someone being mistakenly reported as a former offender could quite
easily find their house burned down about their ears, and the 'mob
mentality' which appears to take over doesn't allow much room for
rational thought. A few years ago in Hampshire a doctor found herself
besieged in her own home, requiring police protection, for the offence
of undertaking the profession of ''paediatrician''.
Personally I believe that whilst there is a good argument for
undertaking the checks, there are a lot of potential issues which make
it quite a difficult decision as to whether one will submit to the
checks or not.
In my own case I used to participate in a programme sponsored by the
Engineering Council, promoting scientific and engineering
professionalism in schools in an effort to dispel some of the myths
about career opportunities. The legislation was brought in and our
chapter was required to spend some £4000 (c$6000 at the time) on checks
for all involved. I knew I was moving about three months or so later
and should I become involved in the programme again elsewhere I knew
that the check would need to be repeated so I withdrew in order to save
some money. As it turned out the job I went to was too busy to get
involved where I'd moved to so it's dropped off my horizon.
Regards
Alistair
rlw
issue here. It is one of risk management required by private enterprise (i.e
the liability insurance companies). There is no governmental involvement,
other than some public bodies, like school districts, require background
checks for those people who will interact with children.
The concern by insurance companies comes in part by the tremendous claims
that are being paid out to victims of abuse by priests. Here, in Oregon for
example, insurance companies will be paying 50 million dollars to settle
long-standing claims and to get the Portland Archdiocese out of bankruptcy.
I suspect that the GL of Oregon would not be able to withstand these kinds
of claims and survive - hence the need for insurance. By being proactive in
requiring background checks, we keep our insurance premiums down to a
reasonable level. The $48 is a wise investment in risk management
Brother Torence may think this is a waste of money, but to conduct business
without insurance in imprudent.
One must realize that no one is forced to be a youth advisor, and no Mason
should feel forced into supporting any concordant body, youth group or
otherwise. However, once Lodges and/or Grand Lodges sponsor a group and
provide facilities, they share some of the liability. Hence it becomes a
risk management issue, as another brother here has so clearly stated.
Initially I too was miffed about the GL of Texas action, but after looking
into the issue, I completely concur with it. Already positive changes are in
the works and I suspect that Jobs Daughter will soon be back in the good
graces of the GL of Texas.
Richard Watson
Advisory Chairman
Peninsula Chapter, Oregon DeMolay
-----Original Message-----
From: sof-mail...@mail.cybermango.org
[mailto:sof-mail...@mail.cybermango.org] On Behalf Of Perplexed Seal
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:16 AM
To: sof-...@mail.cybermango.org
Subject: Re: [sof] Job's Daughters in Texas
Regards
Alistair
_______________________________________________
Torence
obligations administered, this organization assured me that in them
there was not anything that would conflict with any duty I owe to my
country.
As Americans, each of us are protected by the U.S. Bill of Rights.
As an individual back then, my activities along those lines was
personally known to the future Brothers who recommended and
investigated me; and, I have never failed to freely discuss the fealty
I owe to defend the principles granted us as citizens by the US B of R.
While going through the degrees, I was informed that like-minded men
crafted the thing; and, that though my Masonic Lodges are not political
organizations that having members my age being passionate about Brother
Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship,
Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear would help to build bridges
across the generations.That sugggestion has always held true for the
relationships within my Lodges; but seems to stumble periodically with
temporal jurisdictional leaderships.
Performing Orwellian Background Checks on Volunteers are at best,
useless, and in the worst case, un-American. The principles at odds
being that there should be no unwarranted search or prosecution without
due process on American citizens. If Deputized Peace Officers cannot do
such a thing, then why would we permit some faceless, private
investigator to invade the sanctity of our lives? Hasn't anyone in
Texas ever read Farenheit 451? Would the heros of the Alamo allow such
practices? Being a Master Mason or recommended by another Master Mason
is more then enough assurance as far as I am concerned.
Besides, since when is the penalty for every infraction in America a
life time of poverty and regret? The Background tests these youth
groups are employing are not probing for pedophilia alone. The
financial and criminal statistical information says nothing about the
man or woman that the Grand Lodge of Texas should take notice.
If I were a Grand Line Officer, and I do not think that anyone would
suggest such a thing, I would make no act that puts the fraternity
above, to the left or right, or in opposition to the US Consitution.
Doing so injures the image of Masonry not only with the public, but
also among our very own rank and file.
Fraternally,
Timothy
Besides being a Master Mason I am a Christian clergyman. In order to
protect my denomination and my church before I moved to my current
position I had background checks done on me by my denomination and by
my church. This happens to all clergy in my denomination each time they
move to a new church. Also, any person who teaches or works with
children in our church has a background check. That way the parents
know for certain their children are with people they feel comfortable
leaving their child alone with.
Like it or not there are predators in this world who are after young
people. Such people gravitate to organizations that work with
children. I wouldn't let my daughter join any youth organization,
including Job's Daugthers that had leadership that wouldn't submit to a
simple background check.
To be blunt, if you don't have anything to hide than you don't have
anything to fear.
Timothy Bonney, PM
Daylight Lodge No. 660 A.F. & A.M.
Des Moines, Iowa
Torence
hiring in Iowa? More importantly, how many pedophiles have been
certified fit to work with children having passed through this process?
Should the worse happen, how much will it mean to the family & press,
or to a court holding jurisdiction over the matter, that your
organization paid an outside private investigator to run this report.
What is that company's obligation to you as a customer in such an
event? Are they willing to help defend your clubs, pay the penalty, or
warranty their work in any way?
Our courts in Illinois would conisder a one time check of a credit
record a whimpy and inadequate substitution for full participation and
physical monitoring. The investigation is unMasonic according to
Anderson's Charges, (Behaviour to a Brother when not in Lodge) and our
obligations (To vindicate a Brother ...), un-American, un-Texan, and
now I will add...un-Iowan.
Even in Chicago, where we invented the caveat emptor we would not
allow such a Snake Oil to be sold unchallenged.
Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Timothy Bonney, PM
If someone who is a pedophile who hasn't ever been caught is caught
after passing an appropriate background check you can show the courts
that you made proper attempts to protect those in your charge. If you
don't do a check you are negligent having failed due diligence. If you
don't think so look at the shape the Catholic church is in right now
over this kind of thing.
I don't have the name of the organization in front of me that is used
for the check but, it is a nationally known organization used by
non-profits. Also, my own congregation contacted the government
agencies in the state I was working in and had a Division of Family
Services check. I certainly think a government check would later
satisfy a court. And, I gave them full permission for the above
checks.
I'm not at all talking about credit checks. I'm talking about full
background checks including criminal record, vehicle record, and
records with family protection agencies. Credit isn't an issue in
children's organization. If a brother has a criminal record that your
lodge and Grand Lodge don't know about then he lied on his application
to become a Mason or violated Masonic law after becoming a Mason.
I hope I'm understanding you wrong brother if you think that
"vindicating a brother" means some how covering for a brother that has
committed a crime or not protecting minor children in preference to a
brother.
My obligations say that we are to "vindicate a brother when wrongly
traduced." Not that I'm supposed to cover criminal behavior of a
fallen mason. Such men don't belong in the fraternity in the first
place and are in violation of Masonic obligations themselves.
In fact, according to Anderson, I would consider such a man (a criminal
in Masonic clothing) not a brother but a Pretender to the high and
hallowed Craft of Freemasons.
"6. BEHAVIOUR toward a Strange BROTHER.
You are cautiously to examine him, in such a Method as Prudence shall
direct you, that you may not be impos'd upon by an ignorant, false
Pretender, whom you are to reject with contempt and Derision, and
beware of giving him any Hints of Knowledge."
Honestly, I don't understand your objections. A man with a clean
record has nothing to fear.
Timothy Bonney, PM
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Brethren: I believe that further discussion in this thread could lead to disharmony. I suggest that you agree to disagree in Brotherly Love and let the subject drop. Jack Wise, Co-Moderator
mgo_...@comcast.net
> Honestly, I don't understand your objections. A man with a clean
> record has nothing to fear.
>
> Timothy Bonney, PM
>
Brother Bonney;
I would suggest that you might want to ponder the words of WB Benj.
Franklin; "He who would trade freedom for security deserves neither."
S&F
Patrick C.Kansoer Sr. PM
dave...@gmail.com
> Honestly, I don't understand your objections. A man with a clean
> record has nothing to fear.
A man with a clean record doesn't have to defend himself, nor should he
have to defend himself.
-Dave, taking off my Moderator hat again.
--
Dave Vick, PM
Lansing (Michigan USA) Lodge #33, F&AM
(...and a lot of other stuff)
Rich Watson
youth group is totally voluntary, with terms and conditions in order to
participate.
As to effectiveness, yes, applicants have been rejected due to background
checks.
RLW
-----Original Message-----
From: sof-mail...@mail.cybermango.org
[mailto:sof-mail...@mail.cybermango.org] On Behalf Of
mgo_...@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 3:33 PM
To: sof-...@mail.cybermango.org
Subject: Re: [sof] Job's Daughters in Texas
Timothy Bonney, PM wrote:
> Honestly, I don't understand your objections. A man with a clean
> record has nothing to fear.
>
> Timothy Bonney, PM
>
Brother Bonney;
I would suggest that you might want to ponder the words of WB Benj.
Franklin; "He who would trade freedom for security deserves neither."
S&F
Patrick C.Kansoer Sr. PM
Loyal Lodge No. 1007 AF&AM
Skokie, IL USA
_______________________________________________
Perplexed Seal
> Timothy Bonney, PM wrote:
>
>> Honestly, I don't understand your objections. A man with a clean
>> record has nothing to fear.
>>
>> Timothy Bonney, PM
>>
> Brother Bonney;
> I would suggest that you might want to ponder the words of WB Benj.
> Franklin; "He who would trade freedom for security deserves neither."
I'd agree with that people I think there is a problem with people
failing to differentiate that outlook with ''Generally people who would
fail the check don't get checked, they bail.''
Alistair
Perplexed Seal
Oops, well that was barely literate, blame rushing out to get to work
this morning.
Anyway, the point was. I agree with Bro Pat. The issue is those of us
who act in accordance with our principals end up being tarred with the
same brush as those who opt not to undergo the checks on the basis of
risk of failure.
Oh, and the latest here in the UK is media discussion of single mothers
being able to get checks done on new partners to assess the risk to
their children.
Alistair
Mike S
"Rich Watson" <r...@SHCC.org> wrote in message
news:000001c72300$c8161110$06d3...@research.shcc.org...
rlw
would know the reason. I suspect things like multiple speeding tickets or
DUIs will disqualify a person, but that is just a guess on my part based
upon the questions asked in the application.
Larry W
> A man with a clean record doesn't have to defend himself, nor should he
> have to defend himself.
True enough, but men with supposedly clean records wound up abusing
members of DeMolay.
Larry W
> Since the investigation is confidential, only the applicant, if anyone,
> would know the reason. I suspect things like multiple speeding tickets or
> DUIs will disqualify a person, but that is just a guess on my part based
> upon the questions asked in the application.
Anything DI feels is not worth the risk is enough to reject. As to what
is asked, the Adult Worker Profile is the form used and is on the
DeMolay website.
Paul Zentmyer
I appreciate your response but I guess I didn't ask all the questions I
needed answered because I don't see all the answers in this thread. So here
I guess is the question that I probably should have asked. What prompted the
GL of Tx to require such checks of the youth leaders? Am I correct in
assuming that it was a law suite?
I plan on taking everything that has been said in the 3 threads about this
subject and reading all of it. I appreciate the response that everyone has
given. It is good to see such a debate going on in the newsgroup. I was
beginning to think everyone had gone to sleep or were just getting tired of
bantering with the anti's.
Sincerely and fraternally,
Paul Zentmyer, PM
Great Bridge #257
Chesapeake, VA
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Foster" <davi...@sbcglobal.net>
Newsgroups: soc.org.freemasonry
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: Job's Daughters in Texas
> Paul Zentmyer wrote:
>> I have recently heard that the GL Texas is refusing to allow the Job's
>> Daughters bethels to meet in the lodges that are sponsoring them. It is
>> my understanding that the reason is that the bethels cannot meet in the
>> lodges until there is a child protection policy in place for the
>> organization. Does anyone know anything about this? I would be grateful
>> for any and all information.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Paul Zentmyer, PM
>> Great Bridge Lodge 257
>> Chesapeake, VA
>>
"David Foster" <davi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:M%edh.2591$hI....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> Paul Zentmyer wrote:
>> I have recently heard that the GL Texas is refusing to allow the Job's
>> Daughters bethels to meet in the lodges that are sponsoring them. It is
>> my understanding that the reason is that the bethels cannot meet in the
>> lodges until there is a child protection policy in place for the
>> organization. Does anyone know anything about this? I would be grateful
>> for any and all information.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Paul Zentmyer, PM
>> Great Bridge Lodge 257
>> Chesapeake, VA
>>
>>
> That's basically it. We had no trouble with DeMolay or Rainbow, but the
> administration of Job's Daughters just refused to comply to the standards
> we set. In fact, this is a problem that our Grand Masters have had to
> deal with over a period of several years. There was some debate on the
> floor of Grand Lodge about it, but at the recommendation of the Grand
> Master, we voted to disassociate from Job's Daughters as long as they
> maintained their current policy. It was admitted that Job's Daughters had
> made some strides to improve their policies, but were still short of the
> necessary compliance. It is my opinion, however, that now that they have
> been disciplined, they'll spend the coming year getting their house in
> order. I expect that next year we'll see them in complete compliance and
> ready to request that we rescend this year's action. The sad part of it
> all is that the kids are the ones who have to suffer. We have nothing
> agaist the girls, it's the lack of efficient administration that we are
> having to deal with.
> David Foster, PM
>
Kansas EO DeMolay
Torence wrote:
> I do not know where the Grand Lodge of Texas gets off insisting on
> background checks for their youth leadership. Since when, in our
> organization, is being a Master Mason not good enough evidence of
> integrity? I prefer Grand Lodge leadership to not "often try" our
> members. It is un-American to presume guilt instead of innocence and I
> do not appreciate the fascist flavor of these bible belt
> interrogatories.
>
> Senior Warden
> PM Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois
Brother Torence,
It's a matter of "deep pockets". Since an Associate Guardian
(required by Job's) is also a Mason and thus a member of the Grand
Lodge - then the Grand Lodge could very easily be the target of any
legal proceedings in the event of a child protection issue. Even if the
Assoc Guardian was not present, but something untoward happened to a
young girl within a Lodge building - Texas Grand Lodge is left holding
the bag.
What I find frustrating is that Job's was offered the quick simple
solution of using the DeMolay system until they could develop their
own. Texas Job's elected not to take that offer.
Steve Crane
Lakeside #42, Sandpoint Idaho
Creston #54, Creston BC
Toepka #17, Topeka Kansas
Executive Officer Kansas DeMolay
Kansas EO DeMolay
Torence wrote:
> I do not know where the Grand Lodge of Texas gets off insisting on
> background checks for their youth leadership. Since when, in our
> organization, is being a Master Mason not good enough evidence of
> integrity? I prefer Grand Lodge leadership to not "often try" our
> members. It is un-American to presume guilt instead of innocence and I
> do not appreciate the fascist flavor of these bible belt
> interrogatories.
>
> Torence Evans Ake
> Senior Warden
> Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois
> PM Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois
Brother Torence,
I must make one further comment. I have served in leadership roles
in DeMolay for many years. As a consequence I have been aware of child
protection complaints received from youth members, and made against
Master Masons. In every major case it was a Master Mason that was the
culprit. That's an awful thing to say, but it is factual. The worst of
all was a District Deputy who with his wife, sexually abused a lot of
boys.
While a I very much agree with you that we *should* be able to
trust any Master Mason as we all obligated ourselves to the same
things. Unfortunately not ALL Master Masons always remember their
obligations and act accordingly.
Accordingly DeMolay took stringent actions to find ways to put
solid barriers up against child molesters. This includes criminal
background checks, adult training, and the addition of women to the
adult leadership role in the Chapter. The process has worked very well
and since that process was instituted DeMolay has been completely free
of any legal problems.
Steve Crane
Executive Officer Kansas DeMolay
Kansas EO DeMolay
mgo_...@comcast.net wrote:
> A similar situation happened in Illinois a few years ago. I was a
> DeMolay Dad when an edict came down that all adults working with DeMolay
> must be subjected to a criminal background check, a credit check and (if
> I remember correctly) a fingerprint check. My immediate reaction was;
> "What part of 'volunteer' don't they understand?" While I enjoyed
> working with the boys and building character in youth, I stood on
> principle. I stopped being a DeMolay Dad.
>
> Patrick C. Kansoer Sr. PM
> Treasurer/historian
> Loyal Lodge No. 1007 AF&AM
> Skokie, IL USA
Brother Patrick,
I'm sorry you left the fold. You are correct that criminal
backgrounds and a credit check were required that first year. Finger
printing was never required. The credit check has been dropped for many
years now. DeMolay International had zero options on this issue. It was
either take some aggressive measures to put up solid walls against
child molesters, or run without any kind of liability insurance. Nobody
would insure us for any amount of money. As you probably recall the
cost of insurance today is about $14 per DeMolay annually. That has to
be paid by the Jurisdiction - in your case Illinois - who often has to
pass that on to the local Chapters. A Chapter with 30 kids is staring
at a $420 bill each year. If we had not taken aggressive steps the cost
per DeMolay would be ten times what it is now - IF and that's a very
big IF - DeMolay International could have gotten insurance at any
price.
Kansas EO DeMolay
Doug Freyburger wrote:
> My biggest problem is first offenders or folks not detected by
> backgroupnd checks. Background checks can and usually but
> not always will reject repeat offenders, but only team involvement
> can handle first offenders. How many historical problems would
> have been detected with background checks and how many not?
>
> Fraternal regards,
> Doug Freyburger
> WM 2007 Arlington Heights 1162 Illinois AF&AM
> PM 1999 Pasadena 272 California F&AM
Brother Doug,
That is a real concern. For that reason a lot of DeMolay rules have
been changed. The inclusion of female advisors was one gigantic change
that ruffled lots of feathers, but it has made a difference. Don't tell
my wife, but there is little question that females have a far better
"nose" for such things than we males do.
Additional changes went into effect as well. The Youth Protection
video program is now mandated for all DeMolay to see frequently. This
video drives home the need to report ANY touching etc. 2 on 1 process -
no adult is permitted to hold a DeMolay meeting without another adult
present. every four years every adult will get another criminal
background check and computer driven random checks ocurr constantly.
More than a few state Executive Officers have lost their jobs for
either violations of these rules or knowingly permitting such a
violation to ocurr without taking action and reporting the violation to
DeMolay International. The rules are hard, unalterable and fast. There
are no second chances.
The saddest part of all this is that we now have to tell advisors
they can't even hug a kid who is celebrating a winning football game or
has passed his proficiency in ritual. Like other rules in society where
political correctness (or the legal beagles) have run amuk, we are
victims too.
Steve Crane
Executive Officer - Kansas DeMolay
Kansas EO DeMolay
Torence wrote:
> >Evidently your GL hasn't been slapped with a huge law suit yet. Let me assure that once you've been burned, a certain amount of paranoia is very appropriate.
> Illinois Lodges hosting youth groups do not leave such potential
> happenstances to chance. Whole Lodges get involved with their youth
> groups so that no volunteer shoulders the burden singularly or operates
> in a vaccuum.
Brother Torence - you apparently have near zero knowledge of the
Masonic youth group in your own state. There are numerous DeMolay
Chapters running with one or maybe two adults who are willing to keep
it together - in your jurisdiction as well as every other jursidiction
in this country. I would have to suggest you need to spend some time
visiting several youth groups in your area and count the number of
adults that show up at a DeMolay Chapter meeting. Until you do so, your
comments are simply rude and ill conceived.
> So what service do you hire to guarantee fidelity? I will gladly run
> the application through my Ouija Board,
Again Brother Torence you are illustrating your ignorance. The criminal
background checks are accepted by the insurance agency - and even more
importantly - they obviously work as clearly illustrated by the number
of convicted child molesters that apply to be DeMolay Chapter advisors
every year and are caught. The fact that they work is also evident in
the total absence of any legal proceedings since the institution of the
program at DeMolay.
Chris Hills
Kansas EO DeMolay <eodem...@hughes.net> writes
>
>Torence wrote:
>> I do not know where the Grand Lodge of Texas gets off insisting on
>> background checks for their youth leadership. Since when, in our
>> organization, is being a Master Mason not good enough evidence of
>> integrity? I prefer Grand Lodge leadership to not "often try" our
>> members. It is un-American to presume guilt instead of innocence and I
>> do not appreciate the fascist flavor of these bible belt
>> interrogatories.
>>
>> Torence Evans Ake
>> Senior Warden
>> Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois
>> PM Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois
>
>Brother Torence,
> I must make one further comment. I have served in leadership roles
>in DeMolay for many years. As a consequence I have been aware of child
>protection complaints received from youth members, and made against
>Master Masons. In every major case it was a Master Mason that was the
>culprit. That's an awful thing to say, but it is factual. The worst of
>all was a District Deputy who with his wife, sexually abused a lot of
>boys.
For the record my wife is a primary school teacher with several decades
experience. Unfortunately more than once she has come across abuse
problems. This is how come I know about this subject.
The problem is that child molesters and the like tend to be very cunning
and deceitful also they get themselves into positions of authority where
they can be in contact with children and in a position of power. This
can take years.
The Catholic Church has publicly suffered from this [Boston et al] with
many priests being pedophiles. Also some people running children's
homes, social workers etc. These positions obviously take a long time
to get into.
It is interesting you say the "Deputy Director who with is wife" this
shows long term planning. I doubt his wife was naturally inclined to
abuse young boys initially. He picked himself a wife he could manipulate
and control to the extent she would go along with him when he abused
boys.
With this sort of devious long term planning you can see why you can not
just take the worker of a Master Mason, Priest, Social worker etc.
> While a I very much agree with you that we *should* be able to
>trust any Master Mason as we all obligated ourselves to the same
>things. Unfortunately not ALL Master Masons always remember their
>obligations and act accordingly.
A pedophile might actively seek to become a Mason and as the Masonic
checks are for a gentleman not a cunning deceitful predator they are
unlikely to pick up the problem. I know my checks for being a Mason were
not of the sort that could have picked up any deviancy of this sort.
Remember Pedophiles tell lies and cover up as a a way of life.
> Accordingly DeMolay took stringent actions to find ways to put
>solid barriers up against child molesters. This includes criminal
>background checks, adult training, and the addition of women to the
>adult leadership role in the Chapter. The process has worked very well
>and since that process was instituted DeMolay has been completely free
>of any legal problems.
>Steve Crane
>Executive Officer Kansas DeMolay
Also the fact that you have done these checks will show that you are
actively doing something. At least as much as can be reasonably
expected. It might dissuade many deviants who are known or think they
may have some tell tale signals in their past.
I think the thing to remember than the prime motive is to help children
not to support some old man's pride in his word as a gentleman. (Isn't
pride a sin? :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch...@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Doug Freyburger
>
> What I find frustrating is that Job's was offered the quick simple
> solution of using the DeMolay system until they could develop their
> own. Texas Job's elected not to take that offer.
>
> Steve Crane
> Lakeside #42, Sandpoint Idaho
> Creston #54, Creston BC
> Toepka #17, Topeka Kansas
> Executive Officer Kansas DeMolay
Bro Steve and brethren in Texas,
I have a question on the timing of the process. How long were the
Jobies in Texas given to make this change? The rumor mill in
Illinois is that there was only 3 months of notice in texas. Since
lodges work on a clock cycle were a tick is a month and a tock
is another month, and grand bodies work on a clock cycle where
a tick is most of a year and a tock is the annual meeting (sorry
for the dumb analogy), 3 months is much too short a period for
notice.
Is the 3 month time scale erroneous?
Jack Wise
As I understand, it was not the Texas leadership, but rather the
National/International leadership that did not wish to comply. The
Supreme Guardian has been replaced and I expect that the situation will
be rectified shortly.
--
Jack Wise
Secretary, Oak Wood Lodge No. 1444, AF & AM, The Woodlands, TX
(www.txmason.com) ( Lodge E-Mail: oakwo...@hal-pc.org )
PM, Jacques DeMolay Lodge No. 1390, AF & AM, Houston, TX
( www.jd1390.org/jdmlodge.htm )
TEXAS red wine: renowned for its smoky-mesquite-bbq & jalapeno
overtones, the perfect foil for a meal of tacos and refried beans...
Paul Zentmyer
After reading some of these responses and checking the DeMolay and Rainbow
international websites something hit me. Has Texas considered that Job's
Daughters couldn't impliment a child protection policy that would please
Texas GL because of how their constitution and bylaws are written? Is it
possible that Job's Daughters does want such a policy and set down
procedures but just can't act until changes are made properly to the
constitution and bylaws? Not every organization works on the same
schedule/timeline either. Supreme Session (where some of these decisions are
made) isn't until August every year. On the state/local jurisdiction level
their annual meetings are at various times throughout the year. Some
decisions cannot be made at the snap of a finger. I don't know how DeMolay
or Rainbow jurisdictions work but in appears they work a bit differently
than Job's Daughters. I am still reading all of the posts that were
submitted and will be posting a response soon (by the end of the weekend).
Happy New Year to everyone.
Sincerely and fraternally,
Paul Zentmyer, PM
Great Bridge Lodge #257
Chesapeake, VA.
P.S. The opinions expressed in this message are solely mine and do not
reflect those of my lodge members or of Job's Daughters International.
--
Travel safely and go with the knowledge that you are important to someone's
life.
"Paul Zentmyer" <pz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_4-dnbKBFYa0ROnY...@adelphia.com...
>I have recently heard that the GL Texas is refusing to allow the Job's
>Daughters bethels to meet in the lodges that are sponsoring them. It is my
>understanding that the reason is that the bethels cannot meet in the lodges
>until there is a child protection policy in place for the organization.
>Does anyone know anything about this? I would be grateful for any and all
>information.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Paul Zentmyer, PM
> Great Bridge Lodge 257
> Chesapeake, VA
>
>
> --
> Travel safely and go with the knowledge that you are important to
> someone's life.
>
Jack Wise
Very! There were communications between the Grand Lodge of Texas and
the International Supreme Council for a period of several years. The
then Supreme Guardian apparently had no interest in working out a
resolution to the problem.
David Foster
> Brother David,
> I appreciate your response but I guess I didn't ask all the questions I
> needed answered because I don't see all the answers in this thread. So here
> I guess is the question that I probably should have asked. What prompted the
> GL of Tx to require such checks of the youth leaders? Am I correct in
> assuming that it was a law suite?
>
> I plan on taking everything that has been said in the 3 threads about this
> subject and reading all of it. I appreciate the response that everyone has
> given. It is good to see such a debate going on in the newsgroup. I was
> beginning to think everyone had gone to sleep or were just getting tired of
> bantering with the anti's.
>
> Sincerely and fraternally,
>
> Paul Zentmyer, PM
Brother Paul,
This message appeared in my Inbox and I responded there. I thought you
intended it as a personal communication. Let me know if my response was
not adequate.
David
Paul Zentmyer
I want to thank everyone for their input.
How many of you know how Job's Daughters administration works? Job's
Daughters Supreme Guardian is not like our Grand Masters. She cannot make
edicts or resolutions. All such decision making is done by an executive
committee made up of the Supreme line officers and the trustees. The same
applies for the Grand line in each jurisdiction. The one way that the
Supreme Guardian and Grand Guardian are like the Grand Master is that they
are elected to a limited term. In Job's Daughters it is one year.
Job's Daughters is not like DeMolay and Rainbow. While those two
organizations require a Mason to sponsor the youth, Job's Daughters requires
there be a Mason in the family. There is less likelihood of there being a
male other than a Mason on a bethel council unless it is a girl's father who
has not joined our order. A man cannot just walk in off the street, as in
little league, etc., and become an adult leader. To be on a bethel council
an individual must be either a Master Mason, a member of any of the Masonic
female organizations or a parent/guardian of a girl in the bethel. In the
two bethels I've been involved with all of the council members were parents
of the girls except for me and my wife; we were the Bethel Guardian and
Associate Bethel Guardian. We never had any problems with any inappropriate
behavior. In Virginia girls do not go anywhere alone with any man. There
must be a woman present at all times during a meeting or when traveling.
Normally a state would have a Grand line of adult officers to lead and
administer over the girls. In Texas there are so few bethels that they are
under Supreme Jurisdiction meaning that there is a Supreme Deputy that acts
as a liaison between the Supreme Guardian and the bethels. In the Texas
situation the Supreme Guardian would be filling the role of Grand Guardian.
I don't know the reason but perhaps the low number of bethels and Daughters
was a determining factor. I can't speak for the Supreme Guardian or her
reasons. I am not saying that the safety of the girls isn't important but
from the other posts I've read and other information that I have, just
setting up a policy and implementing it can be expensive and time consuming.
To be realistic and not saying this to be cruel or mean but it doesn't
appear that Texas has been that supportive over the years of Job's
Daughters. I support this statement by the number of bethels in the state.
There are only 3 bethels in Texas and a 4th under development. Two bethels
are active; one in San Antonio & one in Houston. The third (in Dallas)
appears to be inactive. I know there are more than 50 daughters of masons in
the state. Perhaps if Texas Masons showed more support there would be a
better response from the Supreme Guardian. I know that if I was the Supreme
Guardian and the Texas Grand Master had told me that I had to implement such
a plan with such a small membership I probably would have said no. Texas is
a big state with more than 4 major cities yet to me there is no real support
from the Masons in Texas for such a worthwhile organization. What I think
they need is more support from the Grand Lodge and subordinate lodges
instead of their disassociation. As for the efficient administration of the
organization in Texas, it's awful hard to do when the Supreme Guardian can
live as far away as Australia, Brazil, Canada, Philippines or another state.
If there were more bethels in Texas with more parents & other adults
involved enough to form a Grand Guardian Council then there would be more
efficient administration of the girls and better communication with the
Grand Lodge.
As for why the Job's Daughters didn't use the DeMolay system I have no idea.
Perhaps it has to do with the size of the organization in Texas and the cost
involved. It may not have been a feasible solution. Bro. Crane if you would
send me a copy of the DeMolay system I would appreciate it. I can't say what
is good or how it would work for us if I have no idea what is in it. I will
put my mailing info below.
I have only a few more things to say. First, Wor. Bro. Doug Freyburger made
a great point. ".active supervision and teamwork beat any background check."
I believe this to be true. The reason we have so many problems with
pedophiles is that parents/guardians and other responsible adults aren't
doing their part to ensure the safety of their children. While my daughter
was growing up my wife and I were involved in every organization she wanted
to be involved with. Whether it was Girl Scouts, Little League Softball,
Karate, school tennis team or Job's Daughters we were there. We didn't just
drop and go as so many parents do today. This is the reason our youth
organizations have to enact child protection programs and insurance
companies are dictating the rules. If all youth organizations, ours
included, would make (and enforce) rules/requirements for parents as well as
the children then these problems would not be as big as they are. The
problems within our youth organizations start with us. As Master Masons we
have an obligation to see that these organizations not only survive but
flourish. I know that in my district in Virginia many of the Brothers will
spend 2 or 3 nights a week visiting other lodges in order to fulfill
requirements for a Grand Lodge award but I never see them at bethel
meetings. When I talk in lodge about Jobie events I can see some Brothers
roll their eyes, look at the ceiling or look bored. Is acting like this what
we are supposed to do? Aren't we supposed to be lending that helping hand
and showing our appreciation for what these children are doing? I am
reminded of a line in our closing charge of a Master Mason lodge. The line
says 'these generous principles are to extend further.' So, are we extending
ourselves to support these youth who are so obviously trying to live a
better life and do what is right in life?
So, Brethren, would you like something different to do in the evenings or
afternoons? Visit a youth meeting. You will be amazed what you find. I learn
something every time I step into a meeting.
I only have one thing left to say; if you aren't part of the solution then
you are part of the problem.
The new year starts in less than 3 hours. Let's make a real resolution to be
more involved with these children who represent our future. I wish you all a
very Happy New Year and the best life can give each of you.
Sincerely and fraternally,
Paul Zentmyer, PM
Great Bridge Lodge #257
1956 S. Coolwell Rd.
Madison Heights, VA. 24572
Jack Wise
Brother Paul,
While you make some excellent points, I sat in Grand Lodge over the past
several years and heard the reports of Grand Masters and various
committees on the attempts to solve the problems that existed. The
problems have existed over an extended period of time and virtually no
progress had been made until this year when the Grand Master by edict
forbad any Texas Mason from taking an active part in Job's Daughters and
forbidding Job's Daughters from using Lodge property as meeting place.
The GM's decision was confirmed by Grand Lodge in its regular annual
meeting.
Only after the GM's Edict, was any action taken by Job's Daughters, and
then only such temporary measures that might cause the Grand Lodge to
over-rule the Grand Master.
The Grand Lodge both confirmed the GM's Edict and then made such changes
to Texas Masonic Law as to make the Edict have permanent effect until
compliance is reached and the Law again changed by the Grand Lodge.