synagogue leadership behind the scenes

[cellio]

I've had two glimpses into the inner workings of (some) synagogue leadership this week.

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.

Comments

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

Having been the person who filled in the answers for my congregation... it gives some insight into what the candidate really wants to know, which is, what is the place really like once I'm not a candidate. As with any application, the premium is on putting the best foot forward. So we wrote a lot of stuff about being inclusive and welcoming and blah blah blah when in reality there's never been any real test of attitude toward gays, or really substantive outreach. Everyone feels that those are the right things to say, but as far as substance... who knows. We do the Imahot but not necessarily out of any kind of commitment to it. A past rabbi instituted it and now it's just there.

The question about new ritual directions was the only time I've had since being here to really represent the things I've made happen: restoring cut parts of the service, doing Tachanun, generally trying to straighten the place out. It probably made us sound more haymish than we are. I sometimes wonder how the rabbi feels about that now that she's here -- now that she discovered that there was one meshgganah who made things strict, and everyone else, who doesn't give a damn. Well, that's grist for my shul blog over the next couple of days. Stay tuned.

rabbis (not) leading services

[chaos-wrangler.livejournal.com]

That build-in assumption leapt out at me too, especially since at most of the services I've been part of (grade school, high school, college, various shuls, services at cons, etc) the rabbi - if there was one - rarely led services and/or had specific ones he would lead over the course of the year (e.g. one of the ones on yom kippur).

I think most/all of the services I'm familiar with have been based on an alternate set of assumptions: (a) any adult (male) should be able to lead (especially relevant for grade/high school services), (b) the workload should be spread around, and (c) various people have various services/holidays/anniversaries (e.g. yahrzeit, bar mitzvah shabbat) that they feel a special attachment to. There's also the fact that, at most of these services, the main difference between what the leader says and what everyone else says is that the leader says it out loud and keeps the pace for everyone else. There are a few sections (e.g. kedusha) where the leader has more/other things to say, and the rarer the service the more likely that there will be parts that aren't so familiar to everyone in the room, but most of the everyday stuff is stuff that everyone knows. This means that "all anyone needs" to lead is lack of stage fright/self-consciousness, a decent voice, and the ability to lead at a decent pace.

[goljerp]

This is interesting because of the built-in assumption

Well, I hate to say it, but this is probably a pretty good assumption for most "normal"[1] Conservative shuls in the U.S. The average congregant in a "normal" C. shul expects the Rabbi to be on the Bimah on Friday night and Saturday morning services. If he[2] isn't leading prayers (he might be accompanied by a cantor[3] or congregant who does the actual singing), he's at least standing up there, announcing pages, leading spoken readings in english, etc.

The average congregant probably doesn't care as much about weekday services (often you have shuls where shabbat services are packed but they barely get a minyan for morning and evening minyan - if they hold them at all), so the fact that the Rabbi might or might not lead 'em isn't a big deal.

Educational director/Religious school leader is a different position -- although C. shuls like having Rabbis doing this, they don't expect that person[4] to be leading the main services regularly (other than an occasional youth service).

As far as what happens when a shul has a "senior rabbi" and "associate rabbi" (who is not the educational director) -- I don't have as much experience with C. shuls like that. I have a friend who was just hired as associate rabbi, and I think she's sharing the leading duties with the senior rabbi... although I think she leads fewer Sat morning/ Friday night services than he does.

Of course, my current shul has a bunch of lay-led minyans... but I'm in Manhattan, and so excluded by my definition of "normal" below.

[1] OK, this begs the question of what "normal" means. I guess what I mean is an affiliated shul outside of manhattan -- probably in a suburb or small town/city -- with a building of their own. This excludes most havurot, independent shuls, wandering minyanim...
[2] Or maybe she -- look, this isn't me saying what should be, this is me describing what I've seen
[3] There seems to be less resistance to female cantors.
[4] A lot of women Rabbis have been pursuing this path, for whatever reason.

Interesting blog ...

[kmstone.livejournal.com]

Hi,
This is Krista (Nathaniel-from-work's fiancee). I read your LJ from time to time via his friends page and I've really enjoyed your insights into Judaism. Another blog that I've discovered, and I thought that you might enjoy reading, is one kept by an "Orthodox Jewish Father" at http://frumdad.blogspot.com/

Hope you find it interesting :-)

[jducoeur]

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.

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...