2010 Proposals

Notice of Motions to Amend the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Canada in the Province of Ontario.

Proposed by Peter Renzland, December 27th, 2009

Proposal 1 Re: PART VI, CHARGES, Summary of the Antient Charges and Regulations.  Item 11

Whereas our Constitution and Ritual are based on those of the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE).

Whereas this item seemingly summarizes Regulation XXXIX of Anderson's original Constitution of 1723.

Whereas in 1827 the UGLE omitted the clause "without the Consent first obtained of the Grand Lodge".

Whereas in 1984 the UGLE corrected this error in its Constitution and restored the original wording.

It is proposed that the Summary be corrected, adopting the authentic text from page viii of the UGLE Constitution, viz.:

Change  "You admit that it is not in the power of any man, or body of men, to make innovation in the body of Masonry."

to           "You admit that it is not in the power of any Man or Body of Men to make any Alteration or Innovation in the Body of Masonry without the consent first obtained of the Grand Lodge."

If this amendment is adopted by the Grand Lodge, it is recommended that the appropriate corrections be made to the Ritual, in accordance with Sections 5, 6, and 7.

Proposal 2 Re: Section 307, Form 6,  Application for Initiation.

Whereas the words "Free by Birth" and "Free Born" had been removed from the English Constitution and Ritual in 1847, following the abolition of slavery.

Whereas this Grand Lodge was formed eight years later, based on the English Constitution and Ritual.

It is proposed that the Application Form be corrected, adopting the authentic text from the English Constitution (Rule 162), viz.:

Change "being free by birth" to "being a free man".

If this amendment is adopted by the Grand Lodge, it is recommended that the appropriate changes be made to the Ritual, in accordance with Sections 5, 6, and 7.

Proposal 3 Re: Section 113 (Powers and Duties of Grand Secretary)

Whereas the Grand Lodge membership consists of the Principal Officers of the lodges, and the Past Masters, pursuant to Sections 9, 10, 56 and 57.

Whereas the Grand Lodge is entitled to know the number of members of the Grand Lodge.

Whereas Grand Secretaries have not reported the number of Grand Lodge members in the past.

It is proposed that the following subsection be added:

"113. (q) report the number of Grand Lodge members to each annual meeting of Grand Lodge".

The text that was mailed to the lodge secretaries in April 2010 was as follows:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

3. The 3rd "proposal" deals with PART VI, CHARGES, Summary of the Antient Charges 

and Regulations Item 11 . 

This proposal states that the existing section l1 be amended from, "You admit that it is 

not in the power of any man, or body of men, to make innovation in the body of 

Masonry." To: You admit that it is not in the power of any man, or body of men, to make 

innovation in the body of Masonry without the consent first obtained of the Grand 

Lodge" and making the appropriate corrections to the Ritual, in accordance with 

Sections 5, 6, and 7. 

Your committee finds this proposal IRREGULAR. 

4. The 4th "proposal" deals with Section 307, Form 6, Application for Initiation. 

It proposes that the Application Form be corrected by changing the words "being free 

by birth" to "being a free man" with the appropriate changes made to the Ritual, in 

accordance with Sections 5, 6, and 7. 

Your committee finds this proposal IRREGULAR. 

5. The 5th "proposal" deals with Section 113 (Powers and Duties of Grand Secretary) and 

suggests the addition of Subsection (q) to read: Report the number of Grand Lodge 

members to each annual meeting of Grand Lodge. 

Your committee finds this proposal IRREGULAR. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The text that appears in the Proceedings is not the text that was submitted.

1. The Whereas clauses were removed.

2. The text was altered, with portions re-arranged, confounding a courtesy reminder about what might be done after the constitution is amended, with the proposed amendment itself.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Annual Communication was 2010-07-20.

The Proceedings are: 

http://www.archive.org/details/grandlodge2010onta

Please note pages 71 and 76-77.

The account given in the Proceedings is not an accurate and complete transcript of the actual deliberations:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

10:32 Actual questions and responses:

Renzland: Why does the Grand Secretary report the number of lodge members but not the number of GL members?

Shand: GL is composed of ... [enumerates GL Officers and suggests one could just count the positions -- about 200]

Renzland: GL consists of the Principal Officers and the PMs of the lodges.

Shand: Absolutely right, all principal officers and PMs are members of the GL.  I apologize.

All registered delegates are published by name, all you have to do is count them.

[ Shand never answered the question that was asked ]

[ This is the same question as the substance of constitutional amendment proposal #5 ]

[ Note: this is simply the number of eligible voters in the election database ]

A few minutes later, Shand spoke with Renzland privately, during which conversation he stated that he has no way of knowing the number of GL members, i.e. the eligible voters.

During the lunch break, Renzland asked the elections manager, Kris Nickerson, how long it would take him to determine the total number of eligible voters.  Answer: 2 minutes.

It appears that the GS, a member of the Constitution Committee, never took a serious and competent look at Proposal #5, or else he would have understood the question and given an informed response, to the question.

The official Proceedings states on page 71:

Why do we not report the total number of Board Members eligible for voting?

Response by Grand Master and Grand Secretary: 

The number attending are reported and the number eligible are not considered pertinent to the process.

[not "Board" members but Grand Lodge members.]

[Who does the considering?  What process?  Why not pertinent to that process?  In what way is the number of lodge members, or the number of deaths o lodge members "pertinent" to "the process"?]

[Should it not be up to the Grand Lodge to decide whether they want to know how many GL members there are, rather than the GM and GS deciding what they will be told and what not?]

10:56 Actual questions and responses:

Renzland: I have some questions to proposals number 3, 4, and 5.  My first question is why were the accompanying reasons not made known to the membership?  My second question is what were the reasons that the Committee found these proposals "irregular"?

Daniels (pre-empting Committee Chair Halperin from answering): Let me answer the whole question is very simple.  You submitted those or they were submitted as constitutional amendments.  But they are ritual changes not constitutional amendments.

Renzland: I wonder whether the Committee read the text that referred specifically to the Constitution ...

Daniels [INTERRUPTING]: Brother Renzland I assure you they were given full and due consideration!

[Daniels did not allow the Committee Chair to answer, then used his office power to cut off the questioner!]

[Daniels was not a member of the Committee!]

[Daniels appears to have claimed that Proposal #5 is a "ritual" change, and therefore that the Grand Secretary's Report is "ritual".]

[Daniels never answered the question why the text of the proposals was altered before being distributed to the GL.]

[The facts of Daniel's assertion are clear from the proposal which clearly states the sections of the constitution to be changed.]

[The text of the Proposals was altered so as to obscure the fact that the reference to the ritual was not part of the amendment, but was a courtesy comment, qualified with "if adopted by the GL".]

The official Proceedings states on page 77:

Q: Why the irregularity of the proposal's 3,4 & 5?

Advised: They are deemed to be Ritual proposal's and not constitutional proposals.

[The fact that the first question, about the text altering, was asked and never addressed, was not reported in the Proceedings.]

[Taken at face value, this response is baseless in the case of #5.  This reveals a serious underlying problem. ]