There is a controversy in my synagogue that bears some analysis. The synagogue's bylaws confer on the board of directors the right to deal with the hiring (and dehiring) of clergy. The board, in its wisdom, decided that both clergy's contracts would not be renewed. Of course, when it comes to clergy, there are some who side with the clergy and some who do not. Those who sided with the clergy petitioned that a general meeting of the congregation be called to examine the criteria by which the board decided to allow the clergy's contracts to expire. It was their right under the bylaws of the synagogue.
The ensuing result can only be viewed with deep regret. The general meeting is now seen, by some, as a referendum on the de-hiring of the clergy. Congregants are taking sides. Articles in the Jewish community press take the discussion public. Telephone campaigns are being mounted to "support the board". In other words, the actions taken by the board have become deeply divisive.
The board of many communal organizations are given an absolute right to hire and, at times, fire employees. When the merits and detriments of the clergy's job are openly discussed and, employment law being what it is, the result is often expensive litigation. In many communal organizations the salaries of clergy are private and are shown as a global amount. This is why serving on a board of any communal organization is so difficult.
The dissenters feel marginalized. They have no way of expressing their views and often feel that the board's actions are arbitrary. Boards do not call public forums to decide whether clergy should be kept on and are advised to act together in solidarity. This position is taken by dissenters as outright stonewalling.
The clergy are often in a difficult situation. Any public negative assessment of their work will have an equally negative effect on getting the next job. Congregations are not anxious to hire people who are perceived as troublemakers. The dissenters are often not doing those they support a favour.
Short of criminal behaviour it is unlikely that a board can be made to reverse its position. There is no provision in the bylaws for recall of elected board members. True, the board can reverse its position but that would be disastrous for the congregation. The proper procedure at the board level was for dissenting board members (if there were any) to move for reconsideration. This would have put the matter over to the next meeting. In the interim, dissenting board members could ask for support in lobbying for the dissenting position. However, that was not done.
Whether its a condo board or a board of a communal organization such as a synagogue or church, the lot of board members is not a happy one I have always said that, given any action by a board a third will like it, a third will hate it and a third won't care. That said, those who hate it have to understand that the board was elected to act on behalf of the members. They must do so honestly but having taken an action, no matter how poorly that action is seen by others, the matter should be over. If the membership can repeatedly second guess the board then no one will serve.
It is hoped that cooler heads will prevail. A meeting that turns out to be a pep rally for the clergy will neither help those who organized it or the clergy. Part of corporate governance is that members delegate certain matters to their board. If the dissenters are unhappy with the board's actions they can always run their own slate and defeat the incumbents (if they can) at the next general meeting. Otherwise, and as difficult as it may seem, the dissenters should keep their own counsel. Easier said than done.
Bernie.
No comments:
Post a Comment