Declining religious congregations usually have some means of changing their direction, not always, but definitely sometimes. There is a literature on this, as well as ample online resources, usually from consultants to Christian churches which I reviewed for a PowerPoint I once gave for AKSE Academy on synagogue life cycles, but applicable to synagogues as well. Do what you did that got you the way you find yourself pretty much invites continuation on the downward path, not always at the same rate, but not reversal to an upward path. Restoration generally requires revision of internal structures, schecting a few Sacred Cows, and rehinging some sanctuary doors so that they swing outward instead of inward.
Some years back, maybe about twenty, our congregational officers sort of figured this out. Board Meetings start with an assessment of income and expenses, always in the red. Seasons end with a decision on a dues increase to offset the deficit, essentially fewer people paying more per family, until they max out and either depart or ask for a personal dues reduction. The focus has always been on attracting more members, something that never really materializes in a way that augments revenue. And clergy understandably want a raise with each new contract, though never take any measure of responsibility for membership attrition. So the President, one with a day job in the financial industry, got the Board to authorize $3500 for a professional synagogue consultant to scour our policies and operations, then advise on how to best reverse our membership decline, financial constraints, internal operations, and public perceptions. A senior consultant from Jewish Learning Venture did his analysis, wrote a report which was made available to the Board, if not to all congregants, then proceeded to Step 2, an Implementation Committee, which I was on. We met two or three times with a facilitator, the daughter of a macher from the other shul across town. As we conversed at small round tables distributed in our auditorium, I was not at all convinced that many people actually read the text of the report. The facilitator realized that so she summarized it for us. There are always external faces and internal revisions. Recommendation externally, be what we are, which is Traditional, full liturgy, with clear gender distinctions. Everyone knew what we are and a place that had already gone egalitarian decades before did it at the expense of reducing their liturgy to accommodate limited ability of their members to perform the full spectrum of Jewish ritual. The internal face proved more difficult, as it involved taking a path other than status quo. The consultant focused on our committees, a loosely structured collection of people doing different things with little formality, little accountability of the chairmen, which never changed, and repetitive submission of some very trivial activity reports to the Board as required each year if they were submitted at all.
While our Implementation Committee met, I do not know if minutes were ever taken. Not much accrued from our expense. We have the same religious orientation that we did before, surviving two more sets of clergy. Committees are loose, but at least we know what they are, as during a three day post-op lame period, I assembled a comprehensive list extracted from a mixture of weekly shabbos bulletins, monthly newsletters, and by-laws which mandated a few assemblages of people, though some defunct even then. The President received the list, copied it onto our annual message to the congregation presented every Kol Nidre, and modified slightly from year to year, more activities disappearing than new one's coming aboard.
In my medical world, committees are the place where work gets done. Hospitals need to make sure staff physicians are qualified so there is a Credentials Committee. There are multiple pharmaceuticals that do the same thing, therefore a Formulary Committee minimizes duplications. Residency programs require Education Committees. In my Medical Society, I served on the Planning Committee that arranges the program for each annual meeting. Synagogues have standing committees for Education and Ritual oversight, but also ad hoc Committees to select Board Members or recruit new clergy. Places that sparkle and places that languish differ by the ability to bring talented, energetic people into projects. That is where our congregational consultant assessed us, when we had maybe twice as many members as currently pay dues. All the more reason to get people engaged. People who have a defined responsibility tend not to leave.
Our current President, experienced with operations of a congregation elsewhere that had different internal operations and different outcomes assumed office. He started by inviting people to volunteer themselves for a committee, providing not only the list of what they are, but a tab on the bottom to send in, so the committee chair could initiate contact. I took the invitation, selecting my two from a list. While we can argue whether volunteers are the best way to go, usually adequate if technical expertise not needed, then proactive invitation is better, the President responded, told me my selections both had the same chairman who would call me. YK to Hanukkah is tad over two months. No contact from the chairman. The President did follow up with me. So I asked him obvious questions that I'd expect an oversight officer to know. Who's on these two committees, what do they do? Other questions are better offered to the chairman, the important one being what would he like his committee to do but hasn't had the people to carry it forward? Have either ever submitted a report to the board? This is where formality and structure drives output.
I sort of know the answer. I suspect the President does too. Some committees have names but no people, no defined roles, no interest on the part of the chairman in doing anything different tomorrow than yesterday. In some ways, like England in 1831, a place with Rotten Boroughs that sent men to Parliament but had no voters in what was really an abandoned geographic center. Cleaned up by the Reform Act of 1832, but despite its obvious need, there was a lot of support for voting it down despite the tenuous nature of how Britain functioned at the time. As I look at the committee list, keep my ear to the ground for what is happening, or at least what is disclosed to me via bulletins, we have our share of mostly harmful non-activity, from Nominating Committees that opt to keep spots vacant than to invite a few more people, including my wife and me. I guess they assume Nobody is an improvement over us.
There's a certain blend of laziness, complacency, good enough, adaptation to routine. That may be why the Consultant, who did the best he could, really couldn't change a culture. That was 200 members ago. They want new members and new participants, but as I found out from my volunteering initiative, perhaps not really me, or perhaps me as useful when they need bimah skill, but a nuisance with a nimble, challenging mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment