Board Discussion

My Zoom access malfunctioned.  I could not see myself on the screen, though I appeared on the attendance list of participants.  Perhaps others could see me.  This distracted me somewhat from our Board Meeting's agenda as I did connectivity troubleshooting while other people spoke.  For the first time since I joined the Board, I said nothing the entire session.  This is a good thing, especially since I had nothing of substance to contribute. Multitasking never turns out well.  I did not multitask.  I shifted between tasks, listening attentively without concerns of what I ought to say.  At my next meeting, I will likely have much to say.  The week after, I am featured speaker.  Any opportunity to restore Zoom to its full capability cannot be set aside.

So, as more a spectator than participant, what did I hear or sense?  Very little served as a forum where issues are raised, discussions ensue, people challenge each other's perspectives, and votes resolve divides.  That did not happen.  In its place, I heard announcements of what had already been decided.  I heard The Clique commenting amongst each other how wonderful they all were.  One piece of adverse news, the departure of what had been a lifelong member.  Not our fault, unavoidable.  Announcement of our Rabbi's proposal to expand connections within our congregation.  Where can we take this?  There are lots of places to take this.  I heard none.  We need more members.  Why do we need more members?  To generated revenue, of course.  Never a recognition of how much our newbies add by their efforts once among us.  Mostly Hear Ye, Hear Ye.  A pro forma evening in the congregational Echo Chamber.

They need to either have the Rabbi stay for the whole thing or plant a mystery shopper who can have coffee with the Rabbi and President.  I heard, or at least sensed, what might be.  It wasn't.

Assessing Congregational Committees

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.

Congregational Board Meeting

It was my intent to appear in name but not photo and not say a word at the recent Board of Governors Meeting, to which all congregants are nominally invited.  And that's exactly what I did.  No agenda on my part but a lot of observations on the Board's agenda, what went well, what did not, the missing parts, and the significance of what was discussed and how it was discussed in relation to trend toward congregational denouement.  There have been no personal invitations from anyone to me for any meaningful participatory role that requires any discernment on my part. Bimah skills are really a form of my possessions, which seems to be what they want.  Yet I might be the congregations most astute observer, so if that's the role it needs to be pursued in a meaningful capacity to the best of my INTJ gift to me from God, perhaps.  

Grand Rounds begins with a patient, followed by a discussion of what the patient has.  Board Meetings begin with a Rabbi statement.  He spoke about the role of diversity of expression and tolerance for it.  Much better discussion topic than presentation topic.  Actually pretty easy to skewer or in the spirit of the presentation challenge in a polite way using Torah sources from the weekly Parsha of Bereshit.  As the congregation rides to its destiny, so did creation.  The congregation has loose ends.  So did Creation.  As twilight moved toward shabbos but not quite arrived, ten final creations came in to being just in the nick of time for the first shabbat.  The first of the divine afterthoughts?  פִּי הָאָרֶץ  Korach's dissent was a necessary part of our history and later heritage.  It was planned for from the time of creation with a means of dispatching unwelcome or hazardous dissents.  וּפִי הָאָתוֹן also appears.  They knew Bilaam would one day arrive and a means of suppression dates back to creation.  Derech Eretz doesn't really arrive until Talmudic times, once the experience and downside of withholding civility becomes more tangible.  I would not expect the Board members to appreciate that.  I would expect the Rabbinical comments to be more profound than they seemed to me.  But it's the failure to challenge what the titled propose, be that the Rabbi or the Officers, which more than anything has harmed our congregation one cumulative whack at a time.  And the Board discussion played out in that pattern from there, one of immense Group Think, with reasonable challenges, nods to the head, but not a whole lot of why or alternatives.  Definitely not one those stimulating discussions I viewed as the norm in my university or professional years or see routinely a few times a week on Zoom as agencies of all types previously inaccessible to my peasant class assemble people who have large funds of knowledge and experience to joust with each other verbally and invite questions from listeners which invariable expand the expert discussion.

Our Congregation has two very big challenges that don't do well with Group Think.  First we are homeless, cashing out for expediency with desperation on the horizon though not yet arrived but now with the reality of having a large amount of cash that will be spent down in a predictable way without a means of replenishing either the funds or the people who generated it over a protracted time.  That situation is largely unique to us, a direct result of decisions that went through our governance one drip at a time for a long time, much like creating that stalactite that you knew would eventually appear but not be appreciated until it does.  

We share the second challenge, coronavirus limitations with everyone else.  This has been a very mixed experience for most individuals.  Some institutions were able to draw on their creativity, others more content to adapt business as usual to the altered circumstances.  I used to attend shabbat services with reasonable regularity.  I understood why better in my college years than my maturity years but had enough of an aspiration for a satisfying Jewish experience to change congregations when Beth Sodom transitioned from a fast quip to more of a situational imprint.  Has covid given me a better experience or a worse experience?  Depends.  I don't miss shabbos services nearly as much as I thought I would, stopped driving until being at home devoid of electronics and mobility became a form of sensory deprivation.  I wasn't an individual participant in the congregation as it became more virtual.  We can argue whether I was blackballed from intent or insensitivity but with Covid it didn't really matter.  

There are places that used their resources or created new resources.  My acquaintance Ron Wolfson had an op-ed in The Forward summarizing how different congregations invested in making their Holy Days ones to remember. https://forward.com/news/national/456279/theres-no-going-back-what-rabbis-learned-from-the-extraordinary-high/  Admittedly, his professional circles are the uber machers who work out of Jewish Cathedrals, with resources to hire professionals and special talent, but all successful projects begin with somebody's imagination.  They also require an element of what have others put on their menu that will enrich our plates, and once imagined, then the internal why not? And while anyone could pop into these worship pageants, most people defaulted to their own congregation for this year's Yomim Nora-im experience.  As I skip services that I don't really miss, not exactly picking Hallel as a central necessity around which my Jewish spirit revolves, I also get an awareness of what was already there that I underutilized, things like yutorah.org or the commentators of outorah.org, and what has come on the scene that would not have existed without the necessity of Zoom.  I have access to great minds in the form of AJC or Moment Magazine seminars.  I must say, one of my most heady experiences has been having my question with my name attached announced and submitted to a worldwide audience to be answered by an expert previously inaccessible to a guy off the street like myself.  Now that I can differentiate expert from title, I read and respond to tweets more, though very selectively.  The Jewish world is global and you need not be a Macher or an inveterate schmoozer to partake of it.  If my own congregation assigns me observer status, I can be an equally good observer immersed in the most vibrant of Jewish institutions as well.  The need for my own congregation seems much better defined post covid, and I find myself a little more intolerant of not being a desirable participant there when my mind is valued at some of the most elegant Jewish institutions in the world who are content with my inquisitiveness and not in quest of my possessions.

The meeting itself had a single agenda item, a new building to upgrade our congregation to an address rather than a postal box. Ironically, as we transitioned from our longstanding building to the CBS Homeless Shelter, the Rabbi opened many a congregational meeting with the concept that the congregation was the people, the building assembled the people.  Not at all the view of this BOG meeting.  In fact there was a secondary item on reaching out to congregants alloted ten minutes at the end, whizzed through with the illusion of self-congratulation by what seems the Jewish Covid-19 version of the USY Clique, though far more important to the congregation's destiny looking forward than whether the building under scrutiny has suitable architectural features and unmolested parking.  Everyone at the virtual BOG meeting had their say, something offered to me as well but declined, though it was more a series of brief monologues than a series of exchanges.  A long way from the Talmudic tradition of Chavrusa or even my usual doctor-patient exchanges in the exam rooms or bedsides.  A vote was taken, accepted by all present.  I suspect it won't matter if Congregational Development in a precarious time is subordinate to anything else on a governance agenda.

So we really didn't have those final ten minutes.  I can say my household got a call from the individual who I would have assigned to himself.  He spoke to my wife, didn't have the saichel or the script to ask if I were home and invite my opinion.  But in AKSE fashion, memberships are counted by checks received and not by the totality of who resides in the household.  BOG can either create the culture or reinforce what is already there.  I would have expected the Rabbi of stable tenure to challenge some of this more than he has.  I do get a birthday call, "how ya doin', nice to talk to you." Never what do you think.  There was a landmark book written about thirty years ago by a linguist Deborah Tannen called You Just Don't Understand.  While the theme of the book was imprinted gender variations in speech, she also identified to broad patterns.  The male pattern was to convey information, the female pattern to use speech to generate connectedness. Since the BOG phone call I was not important enough to receive eluded me, I do not know if the content was one of telling people what the BOG put into their AKSE Trough for congregants to have their fill or whether it had more of a conversational, exchange agenda that creates connectedness as Prof. Tannen described it.  There is data, a quest that only comes naturally to a few of us.  Zoom gives clues.  I know how many people sign in to yizkor or attend a Rabbi class, as Zoom takes attendance.  It's not many, never as many as who populated that BOG session that I observed.  Harder to say if its a few people latching onto all offerings or different people having expressing different preferences.  Exploiting this information offers a lot more benefit to the congregation than  making projections of when the proceeds of the building sale fully deplete.  Might we need a Cruise Director to toss everyone into the pool and make sure they are all having a good time dancing to rhythm?  It is necessary to evaluate major initiatives with big financial implications.  But as many Rabbinical and a few Presidential messages made very clear, our future depends on the identification of people with the congregation, a bond that invited participants retain but observers or correspondents, no matter how skilled or experienced usually don't. No Board Meeting, and few committee meeting, should have anything other than enhancing connectedness as its central agenda item.

Talk about the building.  But conversation to create connectedness has long been neglected, more so as our Nominating Committees make the governance more inbred.  I saw quite a lot of recessive genes expressed amid the Board's proceedings.

Those Goofy CUFI'S

For a while the Rabbi had taken his seat among the Christian Right, most notably an organization called Christians United for Israel.  They would send emissaries to AKSE, our Rabbi would travel downstate to address them.  We both support Israel.  I like watching football on TV.  So did President Nixon.  We were not really allies.  I think you can find commonality in some form if you seek it out in most any pairing, some important as support for Israel, some relatively trivial like football.  These things express a value system but they are not the value system in themselves.  The real value system may be the agents that you choose to enable grander projects, some benevolent and some quite ugly.  CUFI in many ways is antithetical to the Judaism that I was taught in Hebrew School, Ramah, and what I have gleaned on my own many times over since then.

It's been a while since any of them sat in our sanctuary or chapel on a shabbos morning.  They get a comment of praise from the Rabbi when they come, as they should.  They made an effort to be with us, to share what commonality we might have, and in their perspective they think they are probably more of an ally than they really are.  And we have an obligation to welcome visitors and express Derech Eretz.  But there is also a reality, sometimes expressed and sometimes understood tacitly. 

Lenny Bruce used to do a shtick where he would list objects or concepts and label them Jewish or goyish.  Bagel-Jewish; ice hockey-goyish, etc.  AKSE-Jewish; CUFI-goyish.  They've not visited us in a while.  Wonder how many others have taken notice.  I do not miss them.

Strategic Planning

My shul has a real problem.  It resembles my Bar Mitzvah shul which crested at about the time of my Bar Mitzvah, then suffered membership attrition for the next forty years until it closed.  The shul where I attended services as a resident closed.  Both suffered demographic reversals probably beyond their control.  AKSE's struggles may have been more self-inflicted.  There really are not many places like the JCC Spring Valley that are thriving but there are places that used to be like the JCC of Spring Valley that adapted successfully to changing views of what the Jewish experience should be like that do not have to reassess their future today.  Or maybe more accurately they are continually reassessing their future as part of their leadership process, which may be why they do not go from crisis to crisis.

Our President invited comments on what the options for the future might be, posted a slide summary of the 42 comments he received, then invited the Board to comment on the presentation.  my assessment (blue)of the minutes (orange)

o Review of ideas submitted:  Categories: Building, CBS/AKSE; do nothing; egalitarian, financial, liturgy, other, youth.  

Discussion: Sell or downsize building; increase role of women, share space with CBS.  Need to look at how problem 

solution will solve problem; e.g., if membership decline is problem, will solution increase membership.  Problems with 

borrowing from restricted money, fundraising.  Rabbi willing to work something out with another synagogue. Not 

enough children; not growing.  Suggestions are interrelated; must discuss together. 

This is much too diverse.  First the problem needs to be defined better.  Not enough members?  Not enough money?  If we had money would we care about members?  Are the birds-in-the-hand sufficiently satisfied?  What do the members want in return for their support?  How well do we deliver on that?  Is synagogue affiliation really a consumer purchase?

If the problem is money, do we prefer to acquire more money or are we content to spend less or compelled to spend less?

Stephen Covey in his 7 HABITS recommended "Begin with the End in Mind" as the title of one of his earlier chapters.  That will determine when and how to play the gender card, seek other affiliations, develop programming and plan for the future.  Reading the range of comments, many of which can be traced back to when I arrived in 1997 and were addressed by a consultant some time ago, the direction needs to be teased out first.

Now for specifics:  Building is paid for.  Dormant Rabbi house has market value and we need the money..  There is much to be said about merging Beth Shalom with AKSE to a single congregation once the gender card is shredded.  Our talent adds to what they can do.  Their stability and institutional affiliation benefits some of our people.  Do Nothing has been the path for a while, though not exactly.  There were projections of what bringing a young personable Rabbi aboard would do.  Much of the projection did not materialize but at least it wasn't entirely a Do Nothing approach.  Much of the rest of it has been with reasonably predictable outcome.  I think it better to call "egalitarian" the gender card, since that is more accurate and is an issue at all non-egalitarian congregations where there is a disconnect between the secular opportunities for women and their role while under their synagogue's roof.  The blue line of what is acceptable halachically is always in motion, mostly expanding from what was before.  Rather than say egalitarian, I think it better to think of it as making the affiliation with AKSE, orthodoxy and its traditions more appealing to women than it is now.  Remember, orthodoxy with women involved is thriving nationally.  Liturgy needs to be addressed desperately.  My own attrition speaks for itself.  For all intents and purposes, there are no youth.  It is much better for AKSE to accept that, and integrate the children that we do have with other opportunities for them to socialize in the community.  The School remains one of those elephants in the room.  Sharing space with another congregation will not alter the lagging experience of AKSE affiliation.

Discussion about how would work out details and maintenance of identity if partnership with CBS; if work with CBS, 

chance for both institutions to develop a new identity.  Rabbi AKSE has discussed partnership with Rabbi CBS; next 

step is to go to board level.  Could remain as congregation, but not in this building; perhaps smaller building in N. 

Wilmington. Concern about conversion status if Adas Kodesch identity changes. Need longer period to discuss 

changes than proposed.  Main focus needs to be on our own congregants and what they want, to serve our own 

members’ needs; easier to retain members than to find new members; if we can engage current members, they 

become best ambassadors, which provides best chance for survival.  If we are going to talk about partnership with BS, 

should do relatively soon; difficult to combine missions of CBS & Adas Kodesch.   JCC suggested as a possible location 

if we decide to sell the building.  

AKSE has an identifiable mission?  Before you work out details you have to understand what you want.  If you want AKSE of the 1960's to be immutable, you already have that.  If you were engaging current members adequately as a matter of course, this discussion would not be coming up during the tenure of every single recent President.

Possible loss of membership if move left or right.   Discussion about egalitarian changes. E.g., if make some egalitarian 

changes that are Halachic, people will perceive us as fully egalitarian.  If rejoin OU, would require Mechitzah.  If joined 

CBS, most people would not notice the difference.  Adas Kodesch and Chesed Shel Emeth merged, and both changed; 

there is a way to do things if needed.  It appears that people like the type of service we have, although want full 

participation of women.  Should look at Beth Hillel-Beth El in Wynnewood which incorporates elements we have 

discussed.  Going in either direction would result in a loss of members; we should combine ideas, make major cuts in 

expenses, and keep existing traditional Jewish practices to ensure our survival and identity for longest period.  

Problem to ensure traditional practices when difficult to get a morning minyan.  We have to manage unappealing 

choices.

My grandfather's orthodox shul in the Highbridge section of the Bronx does not exist anymore.  Few shuls remain in Manhattan's Lower East Side.  My Bar Mitzvah congregation is gone.  The place I really liked in Quincy has closed.  Synagogues go through life cycles.  Amid that, new ones form and grow.  Charismatic Rabbis sometimes assume the pulpit bringing an energy and perspective that attracts people.  This seems to be independent of form of worship, more related to personal connections that people make at the educational level.  AKSE certainly has its challenges.  It is hard to say what the optimal solution would be, looking at the diversity of end points that people have expressed.

How would Rich the Sage go about this?  First, there cannot be Sacred Cows.  Everything is subject to schechita.  Second, there has to be an examination of ways in which AKSE is unique.  There are many.  There has to be a literature search, both internal to analyze why projections from the past were so wrong or even delusional and to distinguish approaches with potential from sure losers.  I think there has to be a planning committee.  It needs to have ex officio the Rabbi, President and Membership VP.  It needs to have three experts experienced with different trends in American Judaism and in doing literature search and analysis. Then it needs to have five members, either chose at random or selected by the Rabbi.  However whoever the Rabbi chooses should not be seated.  The spouse of that person should be seated.  There is just too much in-breeding and A-lists at AKSE which have been highly detrimental.  Only then does a direction get worked out, sent to the board for vote and then a parallel assembly of officials, experts and random congregants named to make it happen.  Will it happen?  No guarantee.

Nominating Committee

AKSE Board Meeting upcoming in a few days.  This month's agenda contains one dominant item, whether to continue Bingo as an ongoing fundraiser.  My position is currently neutral, but could be influenced by how the last year's experience is presented, or even by its results.  Less obtrusively on the agenda will be the announcement of the creation of a Nominating Committee.  While funds enable activities, people create the experience of engaging in those activities.

Being a nominal democracy, AKSE's members did themselves in for their own convenience a few years ago when they agree to a bylaws change that eliminated term limits for all officers other than the President.  While holding a position for a long time can create expertise, that really has not happened with the possible exception of the Building VP where there has been some turnover.  More characteristically, inbreeding stifles the ideas and innovations that are needed to make a place sparkle.

I do not know the composition of the Nominating Committee but can hazard a pretty safe guess that it will contain a small group of the President's A-List, a cadre devoid of anything that has a scintilla of entrepreneurial experience or intent.  AKSE will always function as a top down organization as an unintended consequence, despite the very sincere belief of the participants that all members have a stake in what happens there.

Purchasing Judaism

Went to the AKSE Board Meeting, the one where they discuss budget.  It is actually a rather thoughtfully constructed, particularly on the income side where predictability is usually not a whole lot better than my trying to predict glucose outcomes from the insulin decisions that I make.  They looked at what they actually took in and for the most part avoided the annual grandiose projections of what they might like to take in but probably won't.  The expense side is much more predictable and the opportunity of a part-time salary has mitigated the reality of spending more than we receive.  

Along with the budget came a dues increase of about 5%.  That would bring my obligation to a whopping $2625 annually, which is enough to make me wonder not only what I get for what is by far my largest tax-deduction not counting my upcoming professional liability tail.  I would also analyze the purpose of this expenditure and alternatives that give a similar or better return for a comparable sum.

One of the people at the Board Meeting asked rhetorically why the congregation exists and what its future might be.  I incurred the irritation of the President, something starting to get a little beyond the energizing mini-conflict from my perspective, by pursing that thought not in a rhetorical way but in its implementation to decisions, whether to make the unpopular choices that eliminate debt or to charge young members a nominal fee to give them a measure of ownership in the synagogue and avoid a major deterrent of a $2625 bill just as they reach age 30 and have to start spending on their kids.  Sometimes you give money away entirely for somebody else's benefit with no expectation of receiving any return, sometimes in gratitude for what you have already received, but most often to make a purchase for something you will get in return.  Usually when I write a check the category is clear.  My support of WashU Hillel is mostly one of gratitude, my monthly Jewish contributions are designed to be for somebody else's benefit with no strings attached and my credit card statement goes mostly to purchases for which I am the beneficiary.  Things like taxes merge all three categories, supporting schools that benefited me greatly at one time, snow removal that benefits me now, and research grants on esoterica that probably benefit nobody but the person receiving the grant.  But taxes define membership in America, Delaware, or municipalities and state sales or hotel taxes paid where I am not really a member perhaps gouge me unnecessarily or enable me to derive benefit in the places I visit which are reciprocated when others visit my places of citizenship.  The synagogue dues fall into a similar realm, providing a forum of Jewish advancement for me, a payback for all the friendliness that has come my way, and a daily minyan for those who hold that experience in higher value than I do.  The women of AKSE, who I think get much less from their membership than would be their just entitlement, get the same bill as me.  The young members do not, yet they also have a mixture of personal benefit, gratitude, obligations to others whose needs differ from theirs, and expectation of citizenship that should accompany membership.  I think the leadership is wrong to bypass some monetary contribution, however nominal, in exchange for what they receive, much as Medicaid and insurance companies have come to realize that co-pays of a minor nature reflect on ownership and responsibility for medical care that does not happen when people receive something without any requirement to contribute to outcome.

So is $2625 a justifiable purchase?  I certainly get less for myself than I once did.  My attendance on Shabbat morning has not only waned but there are times when my avoidance of being there is purposeful rather than a random consequence of the on-call schedule.  While the messages from the Rabbi have clearly reflected his professional growth since his arrival, moving from recycling of Hebrew school dalet class to looking up something in book about Ramban that I do not have and imparting Ramban's insight to me, it is still not quite the same as having facility with 3000 years of our mesorah to explore a topic of Torah from its seventy faces.  At least I am no longer bored but have learned not to engage him in conversation about his sermons.  However, in medicine and in Judaism it has been the ability to engage my teachers and extract knowledge and insight that they have but I don't that has allowed me to advance professionally and Jewishly in a fairly consistent way most of my lifetime.  If I purchase something for me with my dues, that is invariably the item of highest personal value but it has not been forthcoming.  My personal creativity is tolerated but not valued.  I see my inquisitiveness and my intellect as my most enduring Divine gift, the thing that drives me at work, in the exam rooms, teaching people and advancing myself Jewishly whether through Artscroll, yutorah.org, conversation with peers.  It is that give and take, that floating of ideas into the marketplace of possibilities that drives medical progress and advances Jewish mesorah.  I increasingly see that being consciously cut off at AKSE, to the point of no longer being a place where Judaism is advanced by exploring the wisdom and misadventures of what came before.  To the extent that I am purchasing citizenship, the last couple of years have been a sufficient disappointment to make me think that a competing purchase of another type might be better.  And then there are the other two elements, gratitude and need to support the benefit that others accrue though are of no particular value to me personally.  These are hard to get away from, though perhaps easy to replace.  My attachment to Wash U Hillel is permanent even though I was only there two years.  Penn's is permanent.  I owe the current group of students at least what the alumni afforded me.  I don't have that devotion to AKSE.  My sense is more that I paid dues for years, contributed skill for much of that time and received less than I put in, unlike Hillel where I put in bupkis and created an experience that carried forward forever.  Hakaras HaTov is a core value, and AKSE is entitled to some of that irrespective of the irritations that have come my way.  Same with services to others.  The people there need Kiddush, benefit from the Rabbi's mind more than I do, need minyanim, need education.  Even if I do not personally advance from these things others do.  Then again, people need these things everywhere and the advantage of a monetary economy is its portability so I can take part of that $2625 and enable a different cadre of individuals to have these things that benefit them without benefiting me personally.

As I approach Shabbos, Memorial Day, the increasing Days of the Omer that I did not count this year for the first time in a while largely out of a sense of hypocrisy for towards the people who do yet fail to advance their character for their effort, and the end of AKSE's fiscal year, it is hard to dispel my impression that $2625 to AKSE is not a good investment in Judaism for me for sure and probably not for the Jewish public.  The more I analyze this the more convinced I am both intellectually and emotionally that it would be better to simply disaffiliate from any synagogue as my father did at my age, also spurred by an assessment of financial value.  He needed the money for other things.  I am fortunate enough to still be earning a significant salary with the vigor at age 60 to do the things that justify it.  Redirecting that sum in a more purposeful way needs to be considered and probably implemented.  I would like to take 40% of this, about $1K and dedicate it to Jewish advancement for Irene and me, then take the other 60% as three $500 donations for the advancement of others.  There are no shortage of destinations for this money to places that fulfill this mission far better that what I have seen come out of AKSE in recent years.  It is a disappointment in some ways, as there are still friendships and gratitude there but it is not a prudent investment in optimal Judaism.