The Hawaii Masonic Code at §2074. ELECTIONEERING. States that, "No Lodge or Mason shall send out any circular or other written communication to Lodges or Masons concerning legislation to be brought before the Grand Lodge without the permission of the Grand Master or the Grand Lodge. No Lodge or Mason shall send out any circular or other written communication to Lodges or Masons concerning the election of officers in the Grand Lodge."
With the length of notice provided, regarding proposed legislation, and the receipt of reports from the various committees required to report, our membership does not have sufficient time to arrange meetings, nor discuss, in detail the benefits or hinderances of proposed legislation.
Our Grand Lodge has opted for email in order to reduce expenses connected with communications with the Craft in our jurisdiction and further to speed the communication lines.
We still, however expect our Grand Lodge Membership less than forty minutes to determine proposed legislation or who our next Grand Lodge Officers will be. This doesn't compute! The sounds of "railroad" are voiced quite often.
The Section is called electioneering and properly would deal with Brethren working on behalf of a candidate to be elected. It doesn't pertain to legislation, not in my book any way. Of course others may have other opinions.
I believe that we should be able to utilize the email or posters etc. for the election of candidates, and also for discussions regarding upcoming proposed legislation. At least as a first start, remove the prohibition of writing anything for or against proposed legislation. We need more information as to the impact of proposed legislation, not keep it in the dark and then ask us to intelligently vote on it.
WHAT SAY YOU?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Brothers and Sisters. At last night's Kilauea Masonic Temple Association board meeting, a motion was made and seconded to change the KMTA guidelines for the use of the Temple "to allow the consumption of alcohol in the converted garage at the back of the property, except before or during any Masonic function in the Temple". Spirited, but courteous debate followed. The motion was defeated.
ReplyDeleteI send this to you to keep us all thinking about this issue so that in time, a resolution can be found that is fair, equitable and self-governing. I am of a mind that the gathering of brethren in an appropriate location for the purpose of fellowship that includes consumption of beer and wine is acceptable. Provided that it takes place in a designated area and that it never takes place before or during any Masonic function within the Temple. It should be made clear that "during any Masonic function" means the function must be ended and closed, and not that members may leave the function early and head for the bar. Other issues, such as liability exposure, must also be carefully considered.
It is my observation that during the time the Grand Master's Edict # 5 was in force - and to this day - that there has been no inappropriate activity within our Temple that was caused by the consumption of alcohol on the Temple property. We have lived with that restriction and peace reigns. However, I am, and I hope all of you are, open to reasonable suggestions.
I do hope that whatever resolution transpires, that it emanates from the Grand Lodge so that all Hawaii Lodges operate under the same guidelines. That would remove the possibility of each new Master of a Lodge ruling on this issue in a different manner from one year to the next. Consistency is one of the hallmarks of Masonry, and if there ever was an issue over which consistency should rule, this one is it. Please understand that these are my personal opinions, and don't constitute a Master's prerogative
First of all it seems that the provision was placed in the Hawaii Masonic code, and before that in the California Masonic code for a reason and not to "censor" anyone.
ReplyDeleteThe candidates who aspire to become elected Grand Lodge Officers should already have a proven track record of outstanding Masonic performance, dedication to the Craft, the drive and ability to properly perform the duties of the Grand Chair they are elected into, and the willingness to work with all Grand Lodge Officers to promote continuity in programs started by the Grand Lodge, improve the Craft and be role models of proper Masonic Leadership.
By allowing electioneering, and that is exactly what it is, you make the election process even more of a popularity contest than it already is. It will be a battle of who has the best publicist and not who is the most and best qualified Worthy Brother Master Mason for the job.
I know the candidates in the last election were asked to submit Masonic résumés for the office of Jr. Grand Warden. What ever happened to those? Why did we not see those? Why was one candidate allowed to have two recommenders while the others were only allowed one? Maybe you should spend your time focusing on those issues before opening up a can of worms like electioneering.
I guess if you are going fishing you need to have bait.
ReplyDeleteElectioneering is defined as working for the election of a candidate or a party. Personally I would think that some of the previous comments could be supported, but my question is why do we only limit the written form of electioneering while allowing the verbal? A rose is a rose, is a rose.
In my opinion, discussing the merits of a person running for any position or the disscussion of a proposed piece of legislation falls within the definition of electioneering. To me, if someone put his thoughts in writing, there would be no misinterpreting what was being written, however we all too often here the comment, You misunderstood what I said, or I didn't say that, or you didn't hear me correctly, etc.
just because we don't write about a piece of proposed legislation or the upcoming election of positions, doesn't mean that we have prevented electing someone for popularity reasons rather than for qualifications.
I suppose in that, there is something bein said very loudly. Is it that one person is not as well liked, or not as well qualified. It tends to be in the eye of the beholder. Is it true or is it sour grapes?