The Executive Summary reads in part:
1. The report of the Grand Master of West Virginia, as printed in the official proceedings of the annual communication of that sister grand lodge, contains information which, if true, could justify the Masonic discipline of Frank J. Haas and others.
2. The Grand Lodge of Minnesota has no means by which to evaluate the credibility of the competing parties to this dispute in the Grand Lodge of West Virginia, and thus has no means to determine the truth.
3. It was alleged, as a basis for the resolution that Frank J. Haas and others were not afforded due process or the right to appeal from the edict of the Grand Master. The proceedings indicate that such appeals, as well as a petition for reinstatement by Frank J. Haas, were duly considered at the 2008 Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge of West Virginia.
4. The information contained in the proceedings of the annual communication of the Grand Lodge of West Virginia was not available to the voting members of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota present at the time the resolution was proposed and adopted.
5. As the Grand Lodge of Minnesota has no legitimate manner to determine the truth of the dispute, there are no instructions that the Grand Master can provide to the Grand Lodge of Minnesota Committee on External Affairs to enable that committee to comply with the instructions contained in the resolution adopted at the annual communication. The resolution is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit A. The External Relations Committee has been charged with a task that is impossible to complete.
6. The resolution, itself, is so vague that it fails to give sufficient guidance to the External Relations Committee, the Grand Master or the Grand Lodge to comply with its terms.
The last five pages are quoted from the proceedings of the Grand Lodge of West Virginia and include PGM Montgomery's explanation of the episodes involving Frank Haas' expulsion.
Again, I recommend reading this entire document.
I like Frank Haas, and I consider him a friend. I think he is a good man who tried very hard to right many wrongs in West Virginia. But Masonry has rules, and I cannot find fault with GM McCarthy's reasoning for rescinding the resolution of Minnesota.
If I read the report of WV's Grievances and Appeals Committee properly, they did not act on his petition for reinstatement because he had not yet been expelled for a year when they met in 2008. According to the report, he may repetition in 2009. Frank's civil case slowly creeps through the courts, but I suspect if the judge discovers that he has not yet completely exhausted the appeals process within the fraternity, it will undoubtedly be further delayed until he has done so.
Moreover, many have heard Frank's side of this situation, but few have heard PGM Montgomery's, until now. That's no way to fairly "judge with candor, admonish with friendship, and reprehend with justice." Either inside or outside of West Virginia.