![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
synagogue leadership behind the scenes
I'm a member of this year's nominating committee. This year we're also nominating the executive committee (last year was just board members). The executive committee consists of the president and three VPs (with an obvious line of succession), and also a treasurer, financial secretary, secretary, and a couple assistants. My understanding had been that getting onto the VP track leads to eventually being president, but that the other positions are not tied into that.
At this week's meeting of the nominating committee, though, the chair said something like "so-and-so (currently on the exec committee) is interested in keeping his current job but isn't interested in moving up the ranks" (so he was willing to step aside). That's when I learned that, actually, it's assumed that once you're on the executive committee you'll eventually move up to a VP and thence to president. How odd.
Our committee suggested that it's more important to have people who are both competent and interested holding positions like treasurer, and if such people don't have other aspirations that's fine with us. Two past presidents of the congregation thought this was right too, so it's obviously not a hard-and-fast rule. But still -- the skills that make one a good treasurer aren't obviously related to those that make one a good secretary or a good president. I'm still planning to insert myself into the budget committee, mind, but now I know that I probably shouldn't let them eventually make me treasurer. :-)
This morning at breakfast after minyan there was some discussion of that congregation's current rabbinic search. (Their rabbi gave notice a few weeks ago.) One of the minyanaires who (I gather) is on their board or executive committee had copies of a survey the Rabbinic Assembly asked the congregation to fill out. (The RA matches available rabbis with congregations.) She was soliciting feedback from the people there. I asked to look at the questions because I'm curious, though it would be wrong for me to contribute answers. (I'm not a member of that congregation. I'm just this person who shows up and now leads services.)
There were some interesting questions, including many that I wouldn't have thought to ask. (Obviously they have many more clues about this than I do. :-) ) They asked about congregational customs in a number of areas, including the role of women. (This is a Conservative congregation, so not automatically egalitarian.) They asked about attitudes toward intermarriages, conversions, and (I think) gays. They asked what activities in the last year the congregation is most proud of, what things the congregation does not want the rabbi to change, and what things the congregation does want the rabbi to change. They asked what the most recent major decision regarding worship was and how it was made, and what major decision the congregation expects to be next. These are all good questions -- in addition to providing raw data they give the potential rabbi a feel for what the congregation is like even before a phone screen happens.
I was amused by one question: "After leading services, what are the three most important jobs of the rabbi?". This is interesting because of the built-in assumption. Actually, at many congregations the rabbi doesn't lead services, or does so only for Shabbat and Yom Tov (that's the case at this one). And if a congregation has more than one rabbi, I gather that it's fairly common for leading services to fall primarily to one. I know a congregational rabbi who never leads services (except in an emergency); she was hired to oversee the religious school, not to lead worship, and she likes it that way.
no subject
Actually, the approach is somewhat Masonic; I wonder if there was a structural influence one way or another.
The standard Masonic Lodge (in the US, anyway) has three top elected officers: Junior and Senior Wardens and Master. Each has technically-defined responsibilities, but are clearly understood to be a line of succession -- the election process is mainly an annual reality-check on this succession.
However, the line of succession actually goes quite a bit further down, into the officers appointed by the Master each year. In practice, it usually goes further down as Senior and Junior Deacons, Senior and Junior Stewards, and Inside Sentinel if you happen to have enough officers to have one. Again, each has officially-defined duties, but the succession is clearly understood: if you get appointed Inside Sentinel, and everything proceeds smoothly (which is less common than it used to be), you wind up as Master in seven years.
That said, even we don't include the Treasurer or Secretary in the standard succession. On the contrary, they tend to be the "continuity" posts, and are often virtually appointments for life -- it's not too unusual for someone to hold one of those jobs for 20 years. As a result, they are the positions that have limited formal power but enormous influence over the running of the Lodge; in practice, they are often more powerful than a wishy-washy Master. It's possible that encouraging members of the Executive Committee to move up the line is a way to avoid this particular effect...
no subject
Interesting. And I wonder if this pattern is specific to my congregation, the Reform movement, American Jewish congregations in general, American congregations in general... too little data.
However, the line of succession actually goes quite a bit further down, into the officers appointed by the Master each year.
Interesting -- so the Master has direct appointments into the line of succession, but those positions become elected when they get high enough up the chain? I guess that's not any different from officers in other organizations appointing their own deputies or assistants who, it is understood, will succeed them (though some other body has to ratify that succession).
What does an Inside Sentinel do, if you don't mind sharing?
Master. It's possible that encouraging members of the Executive Committee to move up the line is a way to avoid this particular effect...
That could be. All positions on our executive committee have term limits, but there is nothing from stopping two people from trading a pair of jobs back and forth to address this. The only positions where I've seen this routinely happen are the financial ones -- not because anyone's holding the job for 20 years, but because it does require specialized skills. I gather that even with that, though, there's pretty good cycling in those positions over the long term.
no subject
Correct. Basically, the theory is that the Master gets to establish the likely chain of succession, but that has to go through three years of reality-check before you actually hit the big chair.
What does an Inside Sentinel do, if you don't mind sharing?
Precious little, actually. Basically, he sits inside the untyled door, and is responsible for opening and closing it.
(The Lodge canonically has two doors, one tyled and one untyled. The tyled one is guarded by the Tyler, outside the door, who guards it and makes sure that only members enter and exit through it, with the appropriate ceremony. The untyled door is for cases where that isn't appropriate -- in particular, when a candidate enters the room, since he isn't technically entitled to enter through the tyled door yet.)
Subsequently, the official responsibilities become a little realer. The Stewards are basically in charge of the hall, making sure that things get set up and taken down; the Junior Deacon is in charge of candidates; the Junior Warden is responsible for taking care of meals and suchlike; and so on. Granted, in practice this is significantly less responsibility than the members of your Executive Committee would have, but the concept is a bit analogous.