resulting therefrom we believe is excusable.” Id. What distinguishes this case from Coconi-no Pulp is that, here, the secretarial error was neither inadvertent nor clerical; it was intentional action on a matter requiring some legal competence. When an attorney entrusts such matters to a secretary, it is ordinarily not enough, when something goes wrong, for the attorney to later say, “My secretary was inexperienced.” If that is all it takes to show excusable neglect, filing deadlines are open-ended. On a related matter, we agree with Defendants that Rule 6(b), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, cannot be interpreted to extend the twenty-day appeal deadline provided by the arbitration statute, A.R.S. section 12-133. See Varga v. Hebern, 116 Ariz. 539, 541, 570 P.2d 226, 228 (App.1977) (<HOLDING>). III. Defendants request an award of
holding that rule 6b cannot be construed to nullify the specific provisions of the statute recognizing that a contract is to be construed to give reasonable effect to each of its provisions holding that rule of construction that specific statutory provisions control general ones should not be applied where provisions can be harmonized holding that statutory provisions cannot be read standing alone instead they must be construed in light of the entire act of which they are a part holding that the words and provisions of a statute must be construed in a harmonious way