# 2014 Proposed Resolutions and Recommendations (GLoTX AF&AM)



## Blake Bowden (Nov 12, 2014)

Thoughts?


----------



## jjjjjggggg (Nov 12, 2014)

Wow... who knew "on the level, by the square" required so much explanation?

We just had our Grand Lodge session here in Oklahoma last week. It went down without a hitch.


----------



## JJones (Nov 12, 2014)

Seems like there's a lot of them this year! Thanks for sharing.


----------



## dfreybur (Nov 13, 2014)

I wrote an extremely brief summary that lists the page number in the PDF that each item starts on.  I included it as a text file so folks not interested will not see several pages of very terse description.


----------



## MRichard (Nov 14, 2014)

I am a Fellowcraft so I am not familiar with how these things work. Will they be voting on visitation cause I didn't see it in the resolutions?


----------



## dfreybur (Nov 14, 2014)

MRichard said:


> Will they be voting on visitation cause I didn't see it in the resolutions?



As it is not listed that means no member pushed forward the paperwork for it to come to a vote.  Only a member who can vote at GL can submit a resolution.  That's JW, SW, WM, PM plus a list of GL officers who have to be PMs.  Every PM of every GLofTX lodge is supposed to understand it's up to them to be the change they want in the world, be proactive.

The other option is the committee on fraternal relations can ask for a vote in their annual report.  Because the MWPHGLofTX requested improved relations asking for a vote would be reactive.  We'll see.

On my to do list in January - Start the pitch for force a vote if it doesn't get voted on through the committee.  I'm a PM in other jurisdictions so I need to depend on convincing local PMs so I'll spend months at it.


----------



## chrmc (Dec 6, 2014)

Any news on how the votes and resolutions went?


----------



## chrmc (Dec 7, 2014)

Seems Facebook is a little faster. Brother Lins shared this

Here y'all go: Tabled 2012 res 17a - not heard
Tabled 2013 res 3 - not heard
Res 3 - failed
Res 4 - split into A and B. A adopted, B failed.
Res 13 - withdrawn
Res 7 - adopted
Res 8 - amended, adopted
Res 21 - adopted
Res 22 - adopted
Res 23 - failed
Res 24 - amended, adopted
Res 1 - tabled, committee resolution to rewrite entire Title V adopted
Res 2 - amended, adopted
Res 5 - failed
Res 6 - failed
Res 9 - withdrawn
Res 10 - tabled
Res 11 - tabled
Res 12 - adopted
Res 14 - failed
Res 15 - adopted
Res 17 - adopted
Res 18 - tabled
Res 25 - tabled
Res 20 - adopted

*end of Friday session*

Res 19 - amended, adopted
Res 16 - failed
Res 21 - reconsidered, amended, adopted

GM Rec 1 - failed
GM Rec 2 - adopted
GM Rec 3 - failed
GM Rec 4 - adopted

Grand Junior Warden - Tommy Chapman
Grand Treasurer - Thomas Ellison


----------



## Brother JC (Dec 7, 2014)

There've been updates since Friday on this thread, but thanks for making sure we're informed...
http://72.167.178.20/index.php?threads/Glotx-communication.24737/


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry


----------



## crono782 (Dec 7, 2014)

chrmc said:


> Any news on how the votes and resolutions went?


 Sorry, the ones you posted were my updates in the mod section. I forgot I was posting there and not public facing.


----------



## Brother JC (Dec 7, 2014)

Oh, sorry. I rarely notice the header on my phone, and forget there are topics not everyone can see.


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry


----------



## cacarter (Dec 8, 2014)

What were the A and B splits in Resolution 4?


----------



## crono782 (Dec 8, 2014)

If I remember right, part A established a desire to keep and maintain the GL building, part B proposed a funding campaign.


----------



## cacarter (Dec 8, 2014)

Good to see that that can got kicked down the road again. "Save the building! How dare you ask us for more money!"


----------



## Mac (Dec 9, 2014)

How about resolution 24's amendment?


----------



## JJones (Dec 9, 2014)

cacarter said:


> Good to see that that can got kicked down the road again. "Save the building! How dare you ask us for more money!"



That's it in a nutshell.  The majority seem to want to keep the building but nobody wants to pay for it.  3/4 of the room stood up and voted to find a way to keep the building but about 1/4 actually voted in favor of paying for it.

I appreciate it's historic value but it sounds like the place is a money-sink to me.


----------



## Bill Lins (Dec 10, 2014)

Mac said:


> How about resolution 24's amendment?


I am told that PGM Griffin has been in contact with the publisher of the current book. They are going to send a MM from their staff here to sit down with PGM Griffin, who will give him the corrections "mouth-to-ear". I am further told that that Brother's OB does not prohibit him from writing. (!)  Thus he can make the corrections without anyone being in violation, and a new edition can be published with everything correct.


----------



## otherstar (Dec 10, 2014)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> I am told that PGM Griffin has been in contact with the publisher of the current book. They are going to send a MM from their staff here to sit down with PGM Griffin, who will give him the corrections "mouth-to-ear". I am further told that that Brother's OB does not prohibit him from writing. (!)  Thus he can make the corrections without anyone being in violation, and a new edition can be published with everything correct.



Well, if anyone can make sure the work is correct, it would be PGM Griffin...I do believe  he knows the Texas work better than anyone! Some states have plain language rituals that have been authorized and even published by their GLs (save certain parts that should never appear in print in any form, and those parts aren't in the current book, and won't be in the corrected edition either), so that is entirely possible that that could be the case with the MM coming from the publisher who would not be violating his obligation. I trust PGM Griffin's judgement on this matter.


----------



## chrmc (Dec 10, 2014)

JJones said:


> That's it in a nutshell.  The majority seem to want to keep the building but nobody wants to pay for it.  3/4 of the room stood up and voted to find a way to keep the building but about 1/4 actually voted in favor of paying for it.
> 
> I appreciate it's historic value but it sounds like the place is a money-sink to me.



Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think one of the problems with the building is the way the land is structured. I've been told that it's not owned by GL, but only on loan to us through some old decree, but the minute that the GL isn't on it any more it reverts back to the original owners. So essentially you can't sell the building and land, so what do you do?


----------



## chrmc (Dec 10, 2014)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Thus he can make the corrections without anyone being in violation, and a new edition can be published with everything correct.



I don't get why GL doesn't take this as an opportunity to make some money. Either by publishing it themselves or by licensing it for a cut of the profits. This should be a sure way of getting some inflow. Most masons will buy the new version when it comes out.


----------



## Mac (Dec 10, 2014)

But "we're not a publisher," says the group that publishes the monitor and law book.


----------



## JFS61 (Dec 13, 2014)

cacarter said:


> Good to see that that can got kicked down the road again. "Save the building! How dare you ask us for more money!"



The "charity above all else" crowd strikes again. Over the years, a number of parties have put forth resolutions that would (temporarily) divert annual gifts from over-funded masonic charities and feed those monies back into GL for infrastructure and programs. It's at that time that the "we have to give all our money to charity or we're not good Masons" crowd rushes the podium to argue their case, and emotion ends up winning the day. I believe in charity as much (or more) as anyone else, but when the building is falling apart and educational programs go wanting, it's time that (as one exasperated speaker lamented Saturday) "Charity begins at home."


----------



## anraney (Dec 18, 2014)

Charity may begin at home but $100 per capita is just stupid. You would have every lodge in the state raising dues for those years.....Of course then in year four what happens...The lodge dues stay the same cause not it cost more to opperate and their are less paying members. Charity may begin at home....but that home has to be the lodge first then the GL.


----------



## JFS61 (Dec 18, 2014)

Good thing you don't belong to a foreign grand lodge - Most of them have yearly dues in the 3 to 4 figure range (not to mention initiation fees).


----------



## kmfisher1 (Dec 20, 2014)

just a tongue in cheek jab, if we got 12 we might just have needed 14...


----------



## Bill Lins (Dec 20, 2014)

kmfisher1 said:


> just a tongue in cheek jab, if we got 12 we might just have needed 14...


Uh, Papa- we DID get 12.


----------

