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.