Illinois Proposals

[Torence]

Aside from some housekeeping measures, here are some of the
legislative proposals that Illinois will be considering at our October
session:
A. Eliminate the requirement that a Grand Lodge Officer be a resident
of the State of Illinois.
B. Eliminate the power of a Grand Master to dispense with a
Constitutional provision (in this version he keeps the ability to
dispense with Codes.)
C. A change in ritual to allow for the Master to state a purpose on
any degree that the lodge is open and to ask if there is anything
further to bring before the lodge before closing.
D. An adjustment to the mileage and per diem stipend to maintain it
equivalent to the IRS rate.
E. A provision to allow a lodge to select any member to be a proxy if
needed for the Grand Lodge session (the current code requires that any
proxy for a Lodge Officer be a Past Master).
F. Another provision to eliminate proxies all together.
G. Permission for lodges to hold one raffle a year (currently gambling
of any kind is not allowed).
H. Permission for Master Masons to serve more than one lodge as Master
or Warden.
I. The introduction of a single objection rule to prevent even the
acceptance of a petition. (Currently, any objection to receiving a
petition can be over ridden by a majority vote of the lodge. An
unanimous ballot is always required to give the degrees).
J. Requiring the repetition for applications from Master Mason for
affiliation, plural membership and honorary membership, if rejected,
to wait one year before applying again. (Currently, a rejected Master
Mason for plural membership etc. can repetition regardless of time or
place).
K. The requisite that any member expelled from Masonry must wait at
least five years before seeking reinstatement.

Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
PM – Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 – Lansing, Illinois

[Doug Freyburger]

Post by Torence
Aside from some housekeeping measures, here are some of the
legislative proposals that Illinois will be considering at our October
C. A change in ritual to allow for the Master to state a purpose on
any degree that the lodge is open and to ask if there is anything
further to bring before the lodge before closing.

There are lodges that don't already do this when they have a Stated
meeting on the first or second degree? I'm surprised this ended up
something to vote on.

Post by Torence
J. Requiring the repetition for applications from Master Mason for
affiliation, plural membership and honorary membership, if rejected,
to wait one year before applying again. (Currently, a rejected Master
Mason for plural membership etc. can repetition regardless of time or
place).

When I read this one it looked to me like it turned a lot of situations
of "If there be no objection, we will proceed to ...." into a ballot.

There isn't even an application for honorary membership that I know of -
A member nominates a regular visitor and there's a ballot at the next
Stated meeting with no paperwork or application. If this says someone
can nominate me for honoray membership somewhere just so they can ballot
against me, then I can't petition for affiliation that's a bug.

[Doug Freyburger]

   Aside from some housekeeping measures, here are some of the
legislative proposals that Illinois will be considering at our October
A. Eliminate the requirement that a Grand Lodge Officer be a resident
of the State of Illinois.

It took me a while to realize how to view the issue and then the
problem and the better solution occurred to me -

In Illinois and many other US jurisdictions the traditional length of
the cable tow is fifty miles. A Mason who lives within that cable
tow distance of his lodge is in its jurisdiction or is a resident of
that
lodge. Masons living more than that cable tow are sojourner or
non-resident members. The lodge officers and committee men
should be drawn from the resident members.

A grand lodge consists of its member lodges. Thus a resident
of the Illinois grand lodge is a member who is a resident to one of
the member lodges. For lodges less than 50 miles from the state
border that can include Masons who do not reside in the state.

This American Jurisdiction principle had been confused with the
lodge jurisdiction principle I say. That principle says only one
grand lodge should exist in a "territory or state". That was one of
the problems with Prince Hall recognition in fact.

Need the border of the grand lodge's jurisdiction equal the border
of the state? I say not. The grand lodge's jurisdiction should be
a lot of circles 50 miles in radius around all of the member lodges.
It would be interesting to see how much of the state is really a
part of the sojourner territory not of the grand lodge.

H. Permission for Master Masons to serve more than one lodge as Master
or Warden.

A proposal very much like this went through grand lodge in California
during the time I progressed through the line the first time there.
It
passed. It has worked well ever since. If it worked for them it will
work for us. Tastes great, less filling.

[Dave Vick, PM]

In article

Post by Doug Freyburger
Need the border of the grand lodge's jurisdiction equal the border
of the state? I say not. The grand lodge's jurisdiction should be
a lot of circles 50 miles in radius around all of the member lodges.
It would be interesting to see how much of the state is really a
part of the sojourner territory not of the grand lodge.

Just twiddling with this idea in my head...

Let's say you have two Lodges in different States, each one less than 50
miles from the geopolitical border, and closer than 50 miles from each
other, as most Lodges in fact are, these days...

Where to you draw the line between Grand Jurisdictions in this case? In
your hypothetical scenario, which I admit to have freely expanded on,
each of my two hypothetical Lodges exist within each others'
jurisdiction, to say nothing of each Lodge's Grand Jurisdiction...

Is a puzzlement.

[David Simpson]

[Default] On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:25:52 CST, "Dave Vick, PM"

Post by Dave Vick, PM
In article

Post by Doug Freyburger
Need the border of the grand lodge's jurisdiction equal the border
of the state? I say not. The grand lodge's jurisdiction should be
a lot of circles 50 miles in radius around all of the member lodges.
It would be interesting to see how much of the state is really a
part of the sojourner territory not of the grand lodge.

Just twiddling with this idea in my head...
Let's say you have two Lodges in different States, each one less than 50
miles from the geopolitical border, and closer than 50 miles from each
other, as most Lodges in fact are, these days...
Where to you draw the line between Grand Jurisdictions in this case? In
your hypothetical scenario, which I admit to have freely expanded on,
each of my two hypothetical Lodges exist within each others'
jurisdiction, to say nothing of each Lodge's Grand Jurisdiction...
Is a puzzlement.

Can I ask what happens when two, or more, lodges share the same
building?

[Torence]

If Grand Lodges exists, then, to interfere with the free exchange of
fellowship between lodges (i.e. this hypothetical territorial dispute,
the rift between New York and Washington DC, Ohio and West Virginia
etc.) or to serve as an obstacle to admission into lodges by claiming
ownership over the profane as its material by virtue of their
residence, and an interruption to the natural progression of its
serving members into elected office, then perhaps it is time to do
away with the Grand Lodge System all together and replace it with a
system better designed for the realities of this century.


Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary - Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois
PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois

[Doug Freyburger]

Post by Dave Vick, PM

Post by Doug Freyburger
Need the border of the grand lodge's jurisdiction equal the border
of the state? I say not. The grand lodge's jurisdiction should be
a lot of circles 50 miles in radius around all of the member lodges.
It would be interesting to see how much of the state is really a
part of the sojourner territory not of the grand lodge.

Just twiddling with this idea in my head...
Let's say you have two Lodges in different States, each one less than 50
miles from the geopolitical border, and closer than 50 miles from each
other, as most Lodges in fact are, these days...
Where to you draw the line between Grand Jurisdictions in this case? In
your hypothetical scenario, which I admit to have freely expanded on,
each of my two hypothetical Lodges exist within each others'
jurisdiction, to say nothing of each Lodge's Grand Jurisdiction...
Is a puzzlement.

It's not a puzzlement to me - Approach the individual Mason and ask his
lodge membership. If he's a resident member of only one of the lodges
with overlapping jurisdiction then that settles the matter in my view.
I don't care where the political lines are drawn relative to his
residence and I think it's a good idea to avoid discussion of that sort
of politics as well.

There's only an issue to me if he's a member of more than one lodge
within his own cable tow and they are in different grand jurisdictions.
If either jurisdiction has a single blue lodge membership rule that will
never happen and the issue will never come up for lodges near its
border.

To me there is simple and elegant and does not need recourse to
discussing the political borders near his residence. KISS - Keep It
Simple Sweetie. Determine jurisdiction by cable tow ignoring political
borders. When a brother is a member of more than one lodge within his
own cable tow use the GL rules to determine what offices he can and
can't hold but apply those rules to GL posts as well.

The other proposal about servering more than one lodge in an elective
office seems to apply to me. As it is a brother can only serve one
lodge at a time in an elective office (or is it as a warden). So if
he's in an elective chair he can't be in an elective chair in another
lodge. Extend that to appointed and elective posts in the GL as well
and you're done. The proposal is to change that so he's only restricted
from being WM in both lodges. Extend that to appointed and elective
posts int he GL as well and you're done.

[Torence]

Post by Doug Freyburger
The other proposal about servering more than one lodge in an elective
office seems to apply to me. As it is a brother can only serve one
lodge at a time in an elective office (or is it as a warden).

In Illinois the prohibition is on a Brother from being a Master or
Warden in two lodges at the same time. Of what concern it is to the
Grand Lodge, I cannot fathom. Lodges should be able to elect whomever
they choose and I do not agree that the Grand Lodges should ever have
a say in the election as long as the man is a Master Mason in good
standing. From what authority do they derive this right? It seems to
me to violate natural law.

Post by Doug Freyburger
Extend that to appointed and elective posts in the GL as well
and you're done.

From my viewpoint the better revision would be to require that the
Grand Wardens and Grand Master also be serving Masters or Wardens of
constituent lodges, the better then that they think twice before
making impositions upon the lodges.

Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
PM – Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 – Lansing, Illinois