Square & Compasses

AZ dispute, item #7

[Webmaster's note: Some questions by me, for clarification, (indicated by a "}") to Bro. Durgin, and his replies.]
} "Signatures: 8
} Rejected Signatures: 0"
} with no explanation of what that means.  I don't know anything
} about AZ procedures, and that stuff is gibberish to me.

Here in AZ, only WM, SW, JW and PMs may submit legislation proposals.
Our Grand Secretary always lists how many signatures were included that
had to be rejected.  In this instance, there were many rejected
signatures due to some signers being only Master Masons, or from another
jurisdiction (not an AZ member - very few fell into this category).
Proposals 96-2 thru 96-4, and 96-6 thru 96-12 were authored by yours
truly, while 96-14 thru 96-16 came from a group of GM supporters, and
96-17 thru 96-19 were submitted by the entire Grand Lodge progressive
line (minus only the GM).  As you can see, there were many more
signatures on the "freedom bills" than for those inhibiting our ability
to stop abuses of power or office.  It was my intent to show this
disparity, but (as you point out) it only has significance to AZ Masons
who know its meaning.

} - "Grand Master Decision #5" and "Grand Master Decision #6" Are those
} supposed to mean that the text following them was the text of a decision
} by the Grand Master.  And in what context?  Or are they your rebuttals
} (by quoting the Grand Constitutions) of some decisions by the GM?  or
} what?

Yes, the following text (poorly formatted as 20 and 21) is the actual
text itself.  My screwup due to style used, which automatically numbers
paragraphs.  Sorry about that.

} Also, your printed version lists the names of various GL officers,
} without identifying them.  Of course _you_ know who the deputy GM is, or
} the past whoever, but not everyone reading it does.  The on-line version
} has titles instead, but unless I format them, then the resolution
} describing the formation of the bogus charity fund won't say that it's
} being run by Joe Blow and John Doe, but by WHOEVER holds the offices of
} GM, DGM, SGW, etc, not by specifically the current occupants.  See what
} I mean.

Yes I do, but I don't know how to get around the possible libel angle by
including the names.  There could be a problem with the actual names.
How about this: Do you know a lawyer who can advise you on BOTH our
liabilities for using actual names?  Be advised the sections involved
are direct quotes (via a scanner) from the actual Articles of
Incorporation (public document).  I know what you're thinking: Public
documents are okay to release to the public.  You are right, but there
is also a prohibition against dissiminating copies received from the
Corp. Commission (they want everyone who wants them to buy their own
copy).  I suspect short excerpts, such as I used, are okay.  If your
lawyer says we should be okay, I think the names should be put back in,
as in the hardcopy of The Beacon.

Up to Arizona Dispute: main page.