Another angle I was reminded of, to vet...

You could call it a pet peeve...but when it happens...it is more sinister...an ethical turn that leaves a very bad taste.

Asked what bothers me most...it is when individuals assume responsibility for that which they do not have that responsibility.

Maybe it is close to being good. Good Samaritan laws presumably exist to encourage people to take a chance to try to do good, when you could get in trouble for executing what you had intended to be a good result.

I do find that at the point where people try to do good...and surely the Board of Temple Shalom, in substance and principle, generally intends only to do good...at the margin of doing good, with many sensitive things...very bad things can happen. I do think this was the case with Temple Shalom.

Let's say they made the decision in December. Call that value neutral. A group did rise up to challenge it. They got many signers to a petition to say there was concern about the vote. Further, a meeting was held, where many showed up to voice their concern. And, where people would have been prepared to overturn the decision.

Famously, the question was asked and answered...could there be no information the board could hear that would change it's mind? The position was repeated, as reviewed below, that personnel matters remain cloistered.

But....one should be able to trust, and verify.

Would it be the board's position...is that it is their only responsibility...as implied by our Treasurer at that February meeting, that they would only bring to bear their own ideas when they represent the congregation in their meetings? That their charge is not to represent the congregation in doing so.

Would it be the Board's position that it would benefit the congregation to usurp the membership's preferences, and do the best it can for it, for it's own good?

In this powerful circumstance, when the congregation not only is available to speak for itself, but is motivated to do so, and with vigor...the Board should not lightly assume powers that it can only do so with question.

There are nits, that are important in consideration. There are things that the congregation may not know, whatever the devil they are. And...knowing what they do...I understand it would be difficult on either side to assume responsibility for all the things it does know.

The idea of bringing best practices to governance is an important one...and based on Ethan having stood up to suggest this at the Annual Meeting, and Betsy having countered that she plans to do this, it is potentially a formidable task, and one would like to see tell tale evidence that she will be doing this.

One reason to question the environment she is stepping into...

Back when, when Ronald Regan was running for his 2nd term, and then succeeded at the polls, the press asked if he'd be more available, as I recall. I believe he said: "Well...I won," communicating that if there was a compelling reason for him to become more available, it was unknown to him.

People who wanted the board to prevail...have gotten what they wanted. Finding the reasons to change patterns of practice will need to be based on some sort of deliberative process. It's not entirely clear to me what's going to motivate that at this point.

Today, Evan (our older son planning for his Bar Mitzvah) finished his substantive work with his Madrich, Dan Rozman, on not only his Torah Portion, but also, his Haftorah portion. As his Bar Mitzvah will be recognized over Labor Day weekend, and we noted a coincidence of language in the Haftorah that allowed us to pick up on themes concerning labor, we did so. This led us to discussing Labor as a movement, and to Jews who have been of note, and to Saul Alinsky. Evan did include descriptive text, and Dan helped with this as well. Not included, but spied by me, is text I felt central to the issues at Temple Shalom. I include them here:

"Above all, Alinsky always separated the goals of democracy and empowerment, and never confused them. He recognized that they were both important and understood how they were intimately linked, but he always maintained that they were not the same things.

For Alinsky, democracy meant the participation of all human beings in deciding the rules and conditions of their lives. Even if power did not flow, if the movement did not succeed, this had to come first. Horwitt emphasizes that "the _process_ of problem-solving, the active participation of ordinary people, was at least as important as the solutions or decisions themselves" (p. 105)."

Evan will not be including these remarks in his text, but I include them in mine, here.

Back again to Temple Shalom.

Lately...both planning for my son's Bar Mitzvah, and issues concerning our family's affiliation with a Jewish institution have been much consuming me.

Near two weeks ago, just before Shavuot, I learned that at Adas Israel, the Conservative synagogue in DC, they too faced a situation where their rabbis quarrelled with each other. The friend who shared this reviewed that they decided to make the "Solomonic" decision, and remove them both. I sought to understand more, pursued a conversation with their congregation's President, and two days ago we spoke substantively by phone. Apparently, the conflict had been noted from even the 90s. Five years ago, the then board decided to offer them both terminal contracts, lasting 5 years. They then took care to transition a person in the middle, and although he has some regrets for the process in a number of respects (maybe it should have been 3 years offered, the congregation has contracted even still...but with older empty nesters there leaving, etc.), but he spoke about how he knew how each of their clergy were managing the process. I find it hard to believe that such an animated conversation would easily occur between our current President at Temple Shalom, the departed clergy.

In substance, he spoke about lessons after the fact. Where the decision to eliminate the positions was done in a "close to the vest" manner, somewhat cloistered...done by their board, without substantial feedback from the congregation at large...they have learned that their approach should be more open and transparent. He commented on how a donation was recently presented to them with certain strings, that was enviable. But, the current Board decided they would have to explain that the kinds of strings required would be impossible to accept, based on their current need to be a very open community. In this case, the giver understood completely, and modified his conditions.

In contrast...in speaking briefly, later in the same day that I spoke with this President, I spoke with Susan Zemsky about this "learning" they seem to have done. The shorthand of a response, that has become "quick to the lips," has been that staff matters must be confidential. I do not know the way this argument can be countered most effectively, but I know that if it is not...if another view is not understood, and no similar learning process is engaged by Temple Shalom, it will be for its significant detriment.