GLofCA - Strike while the iron is hot!

[dfreybur]

Last night I put into the mail the following legislation for Grand Lodge in California. This is the last of 3 proposals that I wrote and put into the paper mail.

This one falls under both "house keeping" and "throw noodles at the wall and see what sticks". I expect the Jurisprudence Committee at GLofCA to recommend against it, but I figure it's worth a try.

I'm not even positive it will get the necessary 3 signatures in my own mother lodge.


Resolution to present at Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge of California, October 28-30, 2016

Resolution submitted by Douglas J Freyburger PM Pasadena 272 and approved by the undersigned.

Whereas on March 7th, 2016 Most Worshipful Grand Master M. David Perry withdrew recognition of the Grand Lodge of Georgia and the Grand Lodge of Tennessee, and

Whereas the regular jurisdictions of the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Georgia and the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Tennessee are sovereign in those states without current overlap of a recognized sovereign jurisdiction, therefore

Be it resolved that the Grand Secretary send notice of full and customary recognition to the Prince Hall jurisdictions in Georgia and Tennessee.

Respectfully submitted,
Douglas John Freyburger PM Pasadena 272
February 12th 2016

Justification associated with the resolution –

They shot themselves in the foot on this one and we may as well take advantage of the situation by doing the right thing with regard to Prince Hall Affiliation recognition. Georgia and Tennessee will pull our recognition over this but so what. By enacting church law they are in the wrong. By refusing brotherly love there are in the wrong. It’s time we require they clean up their house in both ways.

I’m well aware that the Committee on Jurisprudence will probably advise against approving this because it violated the sovereignty of jurisdiction. Think about that issue – With recognition pulled we don’t currently acknowledge their sovereignty. Let’s do the right thing and strike while the iron is hot! The current situation will take a long time to resolve so we may as well require that its resolution include older problems.

 

[Glen Cook]

Did he withraw recognition, or suspend recognition

 

[dfreybur]

Did he withraw recognition, or suspend recognition

I don't know if California makes that distinction. In the Grand Master's Decision recognition was pulled form Georgia until they repeal. their church law item. Recognition was pulled from Tennessee but automatically returns if they do not ratify the church law edict at their next Annual Communication.

At each Annual Communication, Grand Master's Decisions (edicts) come up for a vote. They are not always ratified. California could restore recognition by having the delegates vote against the Decision. If this Decision fails, then my proposal becomes invalid.

If I get enough signatures at the local lodge level to submit to the Gr Sec that possibility will be a part of the discussion.

 

[Glen Cook]

I don't know if California makes that distinction. In the Grand Master's Decision recognition was pulled form Georgia until they repeal. their church law item. Recognition was pulled from Tennessee but automatically returns if they do not ratify the church law edict at their next Annual Communication.

At each Annual Communication, Grand Master's Decisions (edicts) come up for a vote. They are not always ratified. California could restore recognition by having the delegates vote against the Decision. If this Decision fails, then my proposal becomes invalid.

If I get enough signatures at the local lodge level to submit to the Gr Sec that possibility will be a part of the discussion.

I just looked at the letter. It clearly says suspended, and not withdrawn. That is a distinction for those of who deal with this as an objective reviewer, though I concede that this GM may not have applied that nicety.

 

[dfreybur]

I just looked at the letter. It clearly says suspended, and not withdrawn. That is a distinction for those of who deal with this as an objective reviewer, though I concede that this GM may not have applied that nicety.

Let's see if I understand the distinction correctly -

Suspended means if TN fails to ratify the edict then they no longer impose church theocracy on their members so recognition resumes the day the vote is reported. It also means that if GA votes at a future Annual Communication to withdraw church theocracy on their members then recognition resumes the day the vote is reported.

Suspended also means that if the California edict is voted down at California Annual Communication recognition resumes with no further action by the next California MW GM.

If that's what you mean then in California it takes a vote of GL to withdraw as an edict is only in force until the end up the GM's term unless ratified by vote at GL.

 

[Glen Cook]

Let's see if I understand the distinction correctly -

Suspended means if TN fails to ratify the edict then they no longer impose church theocracy on their members so recognition resumes the day the vote is reported. It also means that if GA votes at a future Annual Communication to withdraw church theocracy on their members then recognition resumes the day the vote is reported.

Suspended also means that if the California edict is voted down at California Annual Communication recognition resumes with no further action by the next California MW GM.

If that's what you mean then in California it takes a vote of GL to withdraw as an edict is only in force until the end up the GM's term unless ratified by vote at GL.

Beats me. UGLE and Utah are less authoritarian, requiring a vote to do such things