Stand up and be counted

RON WEISER

LEADERSHIP is about putting your views and standing up for them — not about hiding behind anonymous and factually-incorrect emails and comments.¬†That’s not leadership, that’s cowardice.

To the members of the Board who commented on my previous blog, thank you for demonstrating your bravery as you have done throughout this sorry saga — not one of you put your own names to your views.¬†The Board has not held one single meeting of the full membership to discuss the issue fully with all options on the table.¬†Legally they do not need to.

The morality of this, however, is a question we all need to consider for ourselves. The only meeting called was an EGM where the motions pre-set and pre-put were to be discussed, and nothing else allowed to be put.

In answer to questions at the EGM as to how much the Board had spent on legal fees and on what authority that had been done, the meeting was told — with an AJN journalist present — that under the Constitution the Board had every right to accumulate legal bills as it saw fit.¬†The membership has no choice or say in the matter at all apparently. And we were not asked, then nor since.

Let’s clear up a few things.¬†Firstly, in regards to legal action and who wanted to go to a Beth Din or not.¬†On the 17th of March 2009 the Rabbi wrote to the Board: “Seeks to have the matter of his contract and the damages of termination without cause determined by Orthodox Jewish Law‚Ķ before any one of the following:Manchester Beth Din, The London Beth Din, The Beth Din of America or Zabla”

On the 18th of March 2009 the Board wrote to the Rabbi: “There is no matter which is required to be submitted to Orthodox Jewish Law”.¬†What could be clearer?¬†Civil court action in regards to resolving this matter began after this exchange.

The AJN has been sent copies of both letters.¬†I do know that the Rabbi signed an agreement in which he accepted a fraction of what was agreed with him at the time of the proposed Great Synagogue merger.¬†I do know that the agreement, negotiated by a barrister within the shul, included the statement “Mr Schneider has expressed the position that he personally finds the terms acceptable but is not in the position to bind the Mizrachi”, and I do know that in the end the President did not sign it.

I guess the best demonstration of the absence of leadership was the statement by one executive member “that the President had exceeded his authority”.¬†As an aside, I was tickled by one Board member’s comments on the previous blog wherein he referred to supporting a Prayer.¬†This actually refers to my campaign to have the Prayer for the State of Israel said in all shuls and schools and particularly in those that claim to be modern Orthodox Zionist and to have the critical words “reshit zmichat geulateinu” included in that Prayer.

Members of our Board have shown a similar lack of leadership in other institutions that they are involved in, by professing to believe that these words should be included, but not ensuring that it is done in those other key mainstream organizations, schools and places wherein they do have a great ability to make that difference in my view.
Oh well — I guess that is to be expected.

Another response that interested me was from the person calling himself “New Mamber” (sic).¬†He is right. I did ring him, but as he was the only new member I rang, it is clear who he is. Hi there, Mr B!¬†He and 3 other members of his family joined our shul just in time to vote at the EGM.¬†I rang him because, as we have known each other for some years, I was particularly surprised to see that he had joined our shul.

I attend Mizrachi very regularly and on not one occasion have I seen him at the shul. Although we have not seen him on Pesach nor Shavuot nor shabbatot etc, I hope to see him in our shul in the near future. I am sure that his joining had nothing to do with some problem external to Mizrachi that he may have, but unrelated to actual issues within our shul. And his comments are parroted and incorrect.

Oh, except that he wonders whether my position is that I am “simply Anti Zionist” as he posits. Yep, that must be it!
With new members like him and his family, but the loss of regulars, we must be in good shape.¬†On the 26th of March 2009 I wrote the following to the Board:¬†”From the shul’s point of view I hope that we have the minimal but proper amount to pay him so that the shul can continue; as his friend I hope that he receives what he is owed; as our shul Rabbi I hope that we fulfil our obligations whatever they may be.

I have never posited what the amount should be, but the process is all important. The ends simply do not justify the means.”¬†Yes, I am the Rabbi’s friend, but I am also a member of Mizrachi synagogue with a deep interest to see it continue.¬†For that to happen the process is important. The “how” is very important. The more divisive and bitter the handling of this, the less there will be left of our shul at the end.

And at the end of this I wanted to be able to say that Mizrachi, the shul I belong to, acted properly — halachically and morally.¬†I note once again that although the Board claims our membership is declining we have added 58 members this calendar year, according to the President¬† — which as I said previously, is a membership gain of around 50%!
All of these new members were passed by the Board according to the Constitution, so I do not know how the claim is repeated and repeated that we have a declining membership.¬†The London Beth Din is hearing the case this week, so let’s hope that whatever the result will be, all sides will accept the verdict.