RABBIS AND SYNAGOGUE ADMINISTRATION Practice and Problems MEL MOGULOF Berkeley, California

A study of synagogues in the San Francisco area revealed several trends in synagogue administration: the emerging role of the rabbi as the CEO of the congregation and its leader in matters both spiritual and profane; the development of a professional position of synagogue administrator; and greater efforts to rationalize dues negotiation and collec­ tion procedures. The extent to which synagogues deepen their relationships with federa­ tions in efforts to enhance Jewish continuity will partly depend on their effective manage­ ment

n pursuing its commitment to Jewish Hfe THE ADMINISTRATIVE ROLE OF THE In the San Francisco Bay Area, the Koret RABBI Foundation has recently made major grants In their rabbinic education, rabbis do not re­ in support of synagogues. One of these ceive much preparation for their role of pro­ grants makes available technical assistance viding administrative leadership and yet lay on issues related to synagogue administra­ congregational leaders seem increasingly tion. In preparation for this techrucal assis­ ready to see their rabbis as the chief execu­ tance Koret invited several congregations to tive officers (CEOs) of their congregations. participate in an effort to determine patterns Reference to the rabbi as CEO was made re­ of synagogue administration and to identify peatedly in my interviews with lay leaders. perceived administrative problems. Four And the larger the congregation, the more synagogues agreed to participate in this ef­ likely was the reference made. fort. These congregations range in size Occasionally reference was made to a from under 200 membership units to over model of rabbinic leadership in which the 1,000 and include the three major syna­ rabbi's domain is the religious life ofthe gogue movements. Each of the congrega­ congregation, with all administrative re­ tions has a filll-time rabbi and a fiill- or sponsibility resting with lay leaders and part-time staff person who is nominally in hired office staff, including someone carry­ charge of synagogue administration. Each ing the title of administrator or office man­ has at least one fiill-time person in charge ager. In practice, this division into areas of of educational programs. Although each of the sacred and the profane seems not to the congregations is partially dependent work. Rabbis supervise staff (including of­ upon fund raising to meet budgetary targets, fice managers and administrators), they each is also heavily dependent upon mem­ provide leadership in the preparation of bership dues as a basic source of income. budgets, they sit, as a matter of job require­ In each congregation the following lay ment, as advisors to their boards of directors and professional leaders were interviewed: and executive committees, they provide staff the current and/or past president of the con­ leadership to standing committees ofthe gregation, the primary rabbi, the person board, and they engage in fiind raising for charged with administrative responsibilify, operating and capital fimd purposes. Per­ and the director of education for children. haps the most interesting finding in this re­ In addition, in all except one congregation I gard is that the administrative role of the attended a meeting ofthe board or the ex­ rabbi is less constrained by the structure and ecutive committee. expectation ofthe congregation than it is by

325 Journal of Jewish Communal Service / 326 the rabbi's own definition of wiiich admin­ cally excluded and/or operates informally, istrative duties he or she is comfortable sometimes without the sanction of the board with. Rabbis are looked to for administra­ of directors. This area involves the negotia­ tive leadership. And often this expectation tion of reduced-membership dues and the is spelled out in the hiring process for a new collection of dues that are in arrears. Dues rabbi. In the search process, rabbis are negotiation and collection are critical be­ questioned about their skill in supervising cause such a large percentage of members others, their willingness to engage in ftmd belong on a reduced-fee basis and because raising, and their capacity to serve as advi­ income from membership is such a major sors to boards and executive committees in part of all congregational budgets. If the conducting the business ofthe congrega­ rabbi is uncomfortable with or is blocked tion. In fact, in one ofthe synagogues ob­ from dealing with the setting and collection served, the current rabbi, in the course of of dues, he or she is separated from one of being interviewed, was told that the congre­ the central administrative problems facing gation was unhappy with how the prior all congregations. rabbi had avoided administrative responsi­ These varieties of practice in other im­ bilities. The current rabbi assured lay lead­ portant administrative areas affect the ad­ ers that he was interested and competent in mirtistrative role ofthe rabbi as well: administrative areas. Despite this strong trend toward defining • Attending and voting at board and ex­ the rabbi as both spiritual and administra­ ecutive meetings: In no instances did tive leader, there are certain tensions in this the rabbi have a vote on the goveriting role definition. Some ofthe tension is ge­ body or even consider asking for the neric to all lay and professional relation­ right to vote. However, there is a clear ships in nonprofit organizations. Profes­ expectation that the rabbi will attend sional staff, particularly rabbis with multi- board and executive meetings, although I year contracts or even tenure, can be seen as did observe situations where such meet­ being in a contest for leadership with newly ings took place without the presence of named lay leaders. It was reported to me the rabbi. Apparently in those situations that one rabbi was specifically asked to be meetings were scheduled without clear­ less forcefiil at board meetings. And some ing with the rabbi's schedule, or the lay leaders regard rabbis as "irmocents" rabbi decided there were more important when it comes to the business of running a things on his or her calendar. There ap­ congregation. For indeed, among other peared to be no consistency in profes­ things, a congregations is a business. And sional behavior of the rabbis at board where the rabbi is seen as an innocent, it is meetings or the board's expectation of likely that his or her advice will be dis­ that behavior, which ranged from passiv­ counted. ity to the taking of strong positions on It is my perception that rabbis with an certain issues. If the rabbi is emerging interest in administrative matters and a per­ as the CEO ofthe synagogue, the rabbi's sonal style that is comfortable with adminis­ performance at goveriting body meetings trative leadership will find ample opportu­ does not seem commensurate with the nity to exercise that leadership. And given role of CEO. Too often the rabbi seems current developments, the opporturuties for passive on critical issues, or he or she administrative leadership by the rabbi are operates in the context of having been evolving into an expectation and a require­ privately warned about being too aggres­ ment that the rabbi will serve as both spiri­ sive. And in some congregations, the tual and admirtistrative leader. rabbi is present at board meetings by "in­ There is one critical area of administra­ vitation" rather than expectation. By in­ tion fi-om which the rabbi has been specifi­ vitation seems to imply the possibility of

SUMMER J995 Rabbis and Synagogue Administration / 327 being disinvited, if the rabbi's behavior could veto the hiring of the administra­ is viewed as intrusive. tor, but had no formal role in that Setting the agenda for board and execu­ person's discharge. The rabbi is almost tive meetings: Some rabbis meet regu­ always responsible for evaluating key larly with the synagogue's president and personnel, although in some cases board are active in helping set the agenda for members or the chairperson of a stand­ governing body meetings. In other ing committee also participate in the cases, meetings are erratic, and the rabbi evaluation process. is not a consistent party to agenda set­ Although I did not anticipate this ting. I was not able to observe any clear much variety in the rabbi's participation pattem of performance on the part of the in the hiring, firing, and evaluation of rabbi in this area. personnel, I hardly expected uniformity. Participating in staffing board commit­ There are varieties of personnel practices tees: The rabbi always participates in in all organizations. What does seem (and perhaps dominates) the Ritual critical to good administration is that all Committee. There is a clear understand­ of those involved—lay leaders, the rabbi, ing and agreement that practices con­ and affected personnel—have a common nected to the religious life of the syna­ understanding of established practice. gogue are in the rabbi's domain. How­ This is not always the case in the syna­ ever, ritual practice, particularly as it in­ gogues I observed. volves the participation of non-Jews in synagogue rituals, is an area of increas­ ROLE OF THE SYNAGOGUE ing complexity in synagogue decision ADMINISTRATOR making. The rabbi and congregation lay There seems to be strong movement toward leaders may bring very different values the development of a professional position to decisions affecting synagogue ritual. of synagogue administrator, particularly in Hiring, firing, and supervising syna­ larger congregations. The administrator gogue employees: This is an area of seems to combine both management and fi­ practice in which every synagogue nancial responsibilities for the congrega­ "makes Shabbos for itself" The one area tion. He or she manages the maintenance of relative consistency is the hiring ofthe of the facility, the synagogue's office proce­ rabbi, for which the governing body al­ dures, and its financial affairs, including ways makes the key decision, accompa­ the tracking of operating expenditures and nied by some effort by the membership- the collection of dues and fees. In one syna­ at-large to sanction the hiring. Hiring gogue the administrator had important au­ and firing practices for personnel other thority in negotiating reduced fee arrange­ than the rabbi vary by congregation. ments and in bringing arrears to the atten­ There are some positions for which the tion of the board. rabbi has sole hiring authority, although As mentioned earlier, dues establishment the rabbi is likely to seek lay leadership and collection are critical to the financial advice; there are other cases where the health of a synagogue. Nevertheless, dues rabbi and the board or the executive procedures are often managed in erratic, committee have joint hiring authority, unpredictable, and sometimes inequitable and there are some cases, particularly re­ ways. Competent synagogue administrators garding the hiring of an admitustrator, will likely become powerfiil forces in the ra­ where the sole hiring authority rests with tionalization of dues procedures. Yet, the the board. And there is an equal variety movement to rationalization is likely to be of practice with regard to the firing of slow and difBcult because of the extensive personnel. In one synagogue the rabbi involvement of lay leaders in dues proce­

ss I/MM£i? 1995 Journal of Jewish Communal Service / 328 dures. Perhaps the greatest stumbhng block The counterpart to that problem arises when to rationalizing dues management, how­ board members perceive that key issues ever, is the lack of conmion agreement have been essentially decided at the execu­ about what a rational dues system would tive committee level, with the board asked look like. merely to provide pro forma approval. In­ The role of the synagogue admiitistrator appropriate executive committee power or varies in different congregations in these ar­ at least the perception of such does not seem eas of practice: to be a problem in any of the synagogues 1 observed, although my conclusion might be • Board participation: Some administra­ different had I interviewed board members tors are invited to attend board meetings; who are not members of the executive com­ others are not. If invited, their role tends mittee. There were reports of such tensions to be passive. In one case the synagogue between board and executive committee in administrator took board meeting min­ the past. utes. Attendance at executive committee In the synagogues I observed, there are meetings varies. clearly different patterns of allocating au­ • The operating budget: A key responsi­ thority to an executive committee. These bility of the administrator is bringing the differences become problematic when there synagogue's year-to-date financial oper­ are differing perceptions as to where the au­ ating experience to the attention of the thority for decision making lies. In at least board. This can be done by briefing the one of the synagogues observed there was appropriate board leader in advance or continuing discussion and confusion about by a direct presentation to the board. the powers of the executive committee vis­ • Relationship to the rabbi: In all of the a-vis the board. Other varieties of practice observed cases but one, the synagogue and possible problem areas include the fol­ administrator is responsible to the rabbi. lowing: However, in some cases the administra­ tor is also responsible direcdy to a board • One congregation thought it important member, who is likely to be the vice- for the education director to attend all president for administration, and that board meetings. person participates in the evaluation of • All boards and board presidents seem the administrator concerned with the effectiveness of com­ • Staffing of board committees: In one munication with congregants. I did not case the admiitistrator staffed four board focus on the question of communications comrrtittees (membership, dues, fiind as an administrative issue, although a raising, budget). In other cases the ad­ prior study had indicated that communi­ ministrator seems to be viewed as a tech­ cation with members was seen as an is­ nician whose staffing of board commit­ sue of great importance by rabbis. tees would be inappropriate. In all cases • As mentioned earlier, boards have vary­ the administrator is expected to be a ing authority in the hiring process for source of current information to board different personnel. In two congrega­ leaders on dues, arrears, and other as­ tions the executive committee also served pects of financial management. as a personnel comnuttee and shared cer­ tain hiring authority with the rabbi. THE BOARD AM) THE EXECUTIVE Boards seem most interested in main­ COMMITTEE taining independent access to the admin­ istrator, thereby bypassing the rabbi, and Congregations face the generic problem of through that person to the financial con­ what authority, if any, the executive com­ dition of the congregation. Themotiva- mittee has in synagogue decision making.

SUMMER 1995 Rabbis and Synagogue Administration / 329

tion for this independent access may be synagogue. In addition to income from benign—to shield the rabbi from having dues, each of the four congregations pro­ to deal with money matters. Or it may poses to meet some portion of its income betray a lack of confidence in the rabbi's from annual fund-raising efforts. Such fiind ability to handle financial oversight. raising is generally programmatic, such as Whatever the motivation, it is hard to dances, trip, auctions, and the like. Fund- reconcile some of these practices with raising efforts can generate a fair amount of the emerging conception of the rabbi as administrative burden, and there was no CEO. dominant pattern for the staffing of fiind­ raising programs. The professional respon­ MEMBERSHIP AT LARGE sible for the program is likely to be the staff person closest to the program, or the rabbi, The general membership of the congrega­ or the administrator, or all of them. My im­ tion has certain powers that are usually ex­ pression is that a fair amount of program­ ercised through an aimual meeting. Such matic fund raising in the synagogues is car­ powers are likely to include the adoption of ried out by membership with mirtimal in­ an annual budget and the election of offic­ volvement of professional staff. ers. Most often such authority is exercised in pro forma fashion in the annual general The primary categories of budget expen­ membership meeting. In my own experi­ diture are salaries and other program ex­ ence I am hard pressed to remember con­ penses. Salary constraints are likely to be tests for election at an annual meeting or established by the board or executive com­ even serious attention devoted to budgetary mittee, and program budgets are developed issues. However, based on my interviews I by relevant standing committees. Most of found that general membership meetings those interviewed seemed to agree that a can be very lively around the decision to synagogue's budget committee is the crucial hire a new rabbi or to terminate a rabbi. force in attempting to reconcile competing One congregation even reported that the demands before the budget is presented to general membership had granted the rabbi a the board. Some have suggested that the raise in salary over the objections of the budget committee is the most powerful force board. Another congregation noted that the in determining the budget; others note the hiring or firing of a rabbi requires a two- final authority of the board, and in one thirds vote at a general membership meet­ synagogue, the membership-at-large seemed ing and that the general membership meet­ to have more than a pro forma role in bud­ ing must approve all dues increases and get adoption. contracts by the synagogue. Except for this The role of the rabbi in budget adoption one congregation, which seemed to pride it­ is less clear. In one congregation the rabbi self on the decision-making authority of its and the administrator, under the leadership general membership, it would be hard to de­ of the rabbi, developed a common budget scribe the membership at large as having strategy and then worked within the board any vital role in synagogue administration. and committee structure to influence the adoption of the budget. In contrast, in at least one congregation the rabbi was the BUDGETING, FUND RAISING, AND DUES sole staff person guiding the adoption of the ADMINISTRATION budget, and there was one congregation All of the congregations observed have dues where the rabbi seemed to have been delib­ and fees as their major source of income, erately marginalized in the adoption of the and precisely because of this the process by budget. which dues are established and collected Two other aspects of budgeting are of and the procedures for dealing with arrears note, although my observations are incom­ are all central in the administrative life of a plete. Congregations seem not to budget

SUMMER 1995 Journal of Jewish Communal Service / 330

deliberately for a deficit. Adopted budgets, gogues. This 25% are divided into two ma­ on their face, seem to be balanced, but jor categories: those who are members in emergencies occur and income projections order to enable a Jewish education for their are not met. One congregation invaded its children and those for whom synagogue reserve fimds to cover a deficit; others em­ membership is an integral part of their barked on emergency fimd-raising efforts identity. They are Jews, therefore they are with "big givers." One rabbi made clear to synagogue members, or vice versa. For me that he was willing (and pleased) to be many Jewish adults, normative synagogue involved in assisting with fiind raising for dues and fees of $1,000 to $1,500 annually capital expansion purposes, but was unwill­ pose a difficult financial burden. ing to be involved in any fiind raising di­ In short, the synagogue requires $1,000 rected to covering operating deficits. to $1,500 per year from a minimum of 150 The four synagogues in this study, and members in order to support a fiill-time synagogues generally, seem to have three rabbi, a subsidized educational program major income streams, membership dues, (where fees do not cover the cost of the pro­ an assessment or voluntary gift for a build­ gram), and the purchase and maintenance ing fiind, and educational fees. Member­ of a facitity. Into this market come five ship dues and educational fees are subject to kinds of consumers: negotiated arrangements in all congrega­ tions. Building fimd assessments are gener­ 1. the great bulk of Jews (some 75%) who ally related to membership dues; if dues are at any one time say one or a combina­ negotiated downward, the assessment for tion of the fotiowing: "It's not worth the building fiind is also adjusted. In at $1,500 to me," "I can't afford $1,500 least one ofthe congregations, a gift to the and I'm not interested in negotiating a building fiind is voluntary and is not neces­ lower price," "I'll use the synagogue se­ sarily related to the level of membership lectively—like buying High Holiday dues. seats," or "affiliation at almost any In many cases, building fimd gifts and price is unimportant to me now" assessments represent a substantial source 2. those who can pay a synagogue's "nor­ of synagogue income, and in some sense mative" price and want to affiliate for such ftmds can also represent "walking- reasons of identity or education for their around money." If building fiinds are not children directed toward a planned capital project, 3. those who want to affiliate for reasons they can and are used to take the pressure of education or identity, can't afford off operating budgets by paying for mainte­ the synagogue's normative fee and are nance work and for the purchase of items willing to negotiate a reduced price arbitrarily classified as capital expenditures. (there are some small number in this And as noted, building fiinds can occasion­ category who pay a price they cannot ally be invaded to meet operating deficits, afford because of "pride") presumably with an obtigation to repaying 4. those who can afford a synagogue's the fimd. normative price but will only join at a The establishment and management of a negotiated reduced price because in dues procedure seem the most fragile part of terms of their values, membership in synagogue administration. Conflict and the synagogue is not worth the norma­ tension are inherent in seeking synagogue tive price members because ofthe nature ofthe mar­ 5. those who can afford more than the ketplace. synagogue's "normative" price and are At any one time, some 25% of those who willing to pay a premium if asked or are nominally Jewish are members of syna­ pressured

SUMMER 1995 Rabbis and Synagogue Administration / 331

This description of the synagogue market is are fixed must be pursued systematically usefiil for understanding admiiustrative and persistently. problems around dues determinadon and • Category 5—those who will pay a pre­ collection that affect all synagogues. It can mium if asked—raises issues of policy. also help us focus on a major problem that How shall such premium payers be iden­ confronts the entire Jewish community— tified? Who should approach them if how to bring more of those in Category 1 anyone, for an "over and above" gift? into active afBliation with synagogues. And of course once a premium payment These administrative issues affect Cat­ plan is agreed upon, it too must be pur­ egories 2-5: sued in a competent administrative man­ ner. • Those in Category 2 who commit them­ selves to a normative fee require a dues- The determination and collection of dues collection procedure that is orderly and define not only the financial well-being of rational. Dues must be established and the congregation but also the quality of a confirmed, bills sent on schedule, and ar­ Jewish community's life. It is a central area rears followed up systematically and per­ of concern in each of these four synagogues, sistently. and in each there is experimentation. One • Those in Category 3—who want to aflBli- synagogue has established a role for the ate but cannot afford the normative rabbi in adjusting fees for those in arrears. price—must see a clearly articulated sys­ One synagogue has placed its administrator tem for dues negotiations: negotiating at the center of its dues negotiation system. must be handled confidentially and con­ This same synagogue is embarking on an sistently and be conceived of as fair and experimental program in which new mem­ related to financial capacity. Once dues bers, who receive sizeable reductions in are negotiated and confirmed, their pay­ fees, are expected to volunteer their services ment must be pursued systematically and in the performance of synagogue tasks. The persistently. The critical questions for leadership of this congregation seems well this category are who does the negotia­ aware of the risks and the possibilities of tion on behalf of the synagogue and by this approach. what criteria are reductions made. If dues negotiation is a generic and es­ • There is no easy answer to dealing with sentially unsolved problem, there seems those in Category 4, those who have an room for a bit of optimism on dues collec­ ability to pay but will only affiliate at a tion. Skilled administrators seem able to reduced or manipulated fee. Members in develop computer-generated billing pro­ this category cormpt every existing grams that are likely to bring increasing or­ membership plan. They are known to der to collections. However, these comput­ the leadership of the congregation and erized systems will not solve the problem of eventually to many others. They choose arrears. In this regard one congregation has to pay what membership is worth to demonstrated that an aggressive program of them without regard to their capacity to board member contact with those in arrears pay. Because the Jewish community can yield impressive results. wants and needs their synagogue affiha­ tion, it is betrayed by the unwillingness SOME GENERAL COMMENTS AND of people in this category to pay their CONCLUSIONS "fair share." The issues with regard to In my interviews, staff and lay leaders de­ this category are matters of policy, rather scribed the administrative stmcture of their than of administration. Once a policy synagogues as "unclear," and one syna­ decision has been made, whatever dues gogue president used the term "chaotic."

SUMMER 1995 Journal of Jewish Communal Service / 332

Another education director asked me if the based find strength in the emerging role of administrative "fiizziness" she was experi­ the rabbi as the leader in two domains— encing was endemic to all congregations. spiritual and admirtistrative. But, depend­ The answer, based on my fieldwork, is "not ing upon the size ofthe congregation, the necessarily." Repeatedly, I was told of old proclivity ofthe rabbi, and the desires of lay administrative practices giving way to new leadership, there are likely to be varieties of ones, and almost always the changes admirtistrative practice in the field. What­ seemed on the side of clarity and rationality. ever these varieties, I see the need for lay Things are not of a single piece, administra­ leadership to have direct access to the ad- tively, in these four congregations, and the nunistrator without compromising or under- differences are instructive and exciting. miiting the overall leadership ofthe rabbi. Each ofthe synagogues observed was Synagogues have long stopped being heavily dependent upon the involvement of "mom and pop" operations. The largest lay leadership in the management ofthe congregation in this study operates on an congregation. Efforts to professionalize and annual budget in excess of $1,000,000. rafionalize the management ofthe syna­ Synagogues that seek foundation and fed­ gogue must be carefiil not to marginalize eration fimds will need to open their books the role of lay leadership. As one rabbi for closer inspection. Conceptualizing the wisely observed in the course of an inter­ rabbi as CEO and hiring a person carrying view, "It is not my synagogue—it belongs to the title of administrator are likely to be im­ the congregation." portant steps toward effective management. There is an inexorable movement toward The rabbi must be able to exercise leader­ establishing the rabbi as the dominant pro­ ship over "profane" as well as sacred issues, fessional in areas both sacred and profane. and the administrator must be more than a Concurrent with that observation, I have not retitled office manager. And all of those in­ met rabbis in my fieldwork who see their volved, lay and professional, must be wiU- forte as admirustration. Rabbinic training ing to examine their practices in the context clearly needs strengthening in this area. of accepted standards of sound administra­ Yet, even if rabbinic training includes more tion. Whatever the practices for budgeting concern for administration, I see a confin- and fimd raising followed in a particular ued movement toward the employment of congregation, good administration would trained synagogue administrators. Given seem to require that these practices be open the likelihood of such trends, an adminis­ and equitable. trative practice will need to be developed There is another aspect of this focus on that recognizes the primacy of the rabbi as synagogue administrative structure that por­ administrative leader, and the management tends good and important things for many role of the administrator within that synagogues in their changing relationships person's responsibility to the rabbi. with federations. As federations and all of Lay leadership will of course have a piv­ American Jewry wrestie with whether and otal role in structuring a synagogue's ad­ how we can sustain ourselves as a vigorous ministrative relafionships. They will need community, the federation-synagogue rela­ consultation help from the field staffs of the tionship must be deepened. New communal various synagogue movements in the devel­ resources will be given to synagogues, and opment of a suitable admirtistrative struc- there will be more power sharing around hire. And lay leadership will need help the community decision table. How this from rabbis and administrators who have happens and the pace at which it happens clarity about the roles they expect to play may depend upon whether synagogues are and how they witi deal with each other. perceived as competent organizations under This article and the fieldwork on which it is competent leadership.

SUMMER 1995