A meeting should be held to hear the congregation's thoughts on the matter of a cantor.
K
Kate Sexton
11 years ago
A meeting should be held to hear the congregation's thoughts on the matter of a cantor.
D
Diane Wolfthal
11 years ago
It is always good to meet to discuss issues of concern.
D
Diane Wolfthal
11 years ago
It is always good to meet to discuss issues of concern.
L
Louis Sokol
11 years ago
The CBS Constitution is VERY clear that the congregation has to approve the choice of Cantor. When you pay someone to do the Cantorial duties, that is the Cantor. Moving Cantor Levine over to assume some of those duties without congregation approval is not allowed. The Board is exceeding their authority by doing that and should not be allowed. That has nothing to do with any changes in worship culture that the Rabbi wants to implement now or in the future.
Why did the Board choose not to interview Cantors to directly replace Cantor Rhodes? CBS should have been in that cycle since October 2014. This has never been fully explained to the congregation. Will it save money? I don't know, you are paying Cantor Levine to do Cantorial work, then hiring an assistant to take over some of the education duties, a High Holiday Cantor and who knows what other changes decided upon without congregation knowledge. If the Board was more transparent and explained what they wanted to do to the congregation, I imagine that the congregation would vote okay. However, with the past Board decisions that have violated or suspended the constitution, how are we to trust this is in our best interest with so little information from the current Board? At our Havurah meeting last month President Allan Goldstein said that the Board members were supposed to solicit opinions from the congregants. Out of 8 families, none were included in those surveys. Nobody any of us knew had said anything to us about a survey. Is that the proper way to solicit input? Maybe just "special" people were asked and we weren't supposed to know about it.
I worry about the image in the community if we don't have a Cantor. Everyone else does, to my knowledge, especially for shuls our size. When potential new members come to CBS and consider joining, are they told we won't have a Cantor for the next year, or maybe two years, or maybe three years, or some other time span? Does that affect their choice of shul, especially
R
Rosemary and Earl Pachter
11 years ago
Music/Cantor are the heart of the synagogue. Sincerely hope CBSreconsiders!
R
Rosemary and Earl Pachter
11 years ago
Music/Cantor are the heart of the synagogue. Sincerely hope CBSreconsiders!
M
Mitch Kreindler
11 years ago
Although I write here as a member of CBS, I am also a member of the CBS Board. I appreciate the thoughtful position set forth and leadership provided by Moshe Vardi and welcome this opportunity for dialog. It is important that anyone interested in this subject read the background documents that Moshe provided at goo.gl/zOuEDh and http://goo.gl/FTTcVx.
As Moshe states, the issue is whether or not the Constitution requires that that Congregation have a Cantor. This is very important because, as I understand it, neither Moshe nor the petition is intended to challenge the decision of the Board and clergy to implement an innovative strategy for bringing exciting new musical opportunities to the Congregation by trusting in Rabbi Teller's musical talents and engaging the magnificent, operatic abilities of David Krohn for special occasions (including the High Holidays). Services at Brith Shalom are expected to be more engaging and more meaningful under this new model.
With regard to the constitutional question, I think it clear that the Congregation is not required to retain a Cantor. To me, Moshe answers this question correctly when he says "The CBS Constitution does not explicit[ly] say that the Congregation 'shall have a Cantor' or that it 'shall have a Rabbi' . . . . In contrast, the Constitution says that the Congregation shall have a Board, a President, Vice Presidents, and a Secretary."
The constitution does not require that clergy be retained for good reason. Suppose, for example, the shul is unable to afford to fill a Cantor position. Would we still be required to hire a Cantor? Of course not. While a case can be made that the the constitution assumes that a Cantor will be hired because that has been the norm for most of Brith Shalom's history, it does not require such a hire. The Constitution is clear on this point, even though it sets forth procedures for the selection of clergy should new clergy be retained.
Change can be difficult but it is importa
O
Oliver Max
11 years ago
Not sure what my position is one way or another but the board at least needs to explain their position
O
Oliver Max
11 years ago
Not sure what my position is one way or another but the board at least needs to explain their position
M
Marni Hettena
11 years ago
Having a cantor is very important to us especially since our daughters will be having a bat mitzvah in the next few years. A meeting is definitely warranted.
M
Marni Hettena
11 years ago
Featured
Having a cantor is very important to us especially since our daughters will be having a bat mitzvah in the next few years. A meeting is definitely warranted.
P
Phyllis Gingiss
11 years ago
The decision and future plans warrant a congregational hearing
P
Phyllis Gingiss
11 years ago
The decision and future plans warrant a congregational hearing
L
Lyn Rosenberg-Johnson
11 years ago
I value having a cantor very much. I am curious as to why no timeline was established for commencing a search for a new cantor, even if the search is for the year 2016..
A
Anna Steinberger
11 years ago
It is a good idea.
D
Debi and Sam Mishael
11 years ago
While we believe the board is operating with the best of intentions, we also feel that this is a big enough issue that it warrants congregational input.
M
Mark K
11 years ago
Congregation MUST be involved but we know historically that CBS Constitution is ignored or changed to suit some. FYI the real issue is fiscal and lack of transparency, once again. Mark & Fran Katzenellenbogen
S
Sean & Nola Brody
11 years ago
Before such a seemingly radical change to our conservative shul, it would be nice to have been provided more details, more input. Alas, I'm just a simple congregant. And I should be thrilled at the prospect of relegation to a traditional service held in some closet, should I not prefer the format changes/agree with the board's infinite wisdom. Thankful for those who put this petition together.
S
Stephen Robbins
11 years ago
Being for or against the action by the Board is immaterial. What is important is that proper procedures be followed to get input from the Congregation.
A meeting should be held to hear the congregation's thoughts on the matter of a cantor.
A meeting should be held to hear the congregation's thoughts on the matter of a cantor.
It is always good to meet to discuss issues of concern.
It is always good to meet to discuss issues of concern.
The CBS Constitution is VERY clear that the congregation has to approve the choice of Cantor. When you pay someone to do the Cantorial duties, that is the Cantor. Moving Cantor Levine over to assume some of those duties without congregation approval is not allowed. The Board is exceeding their authority by doing that and should not be allowed. That has nothing to do with any changes in worship culture that the Rabbi wants to implement now or in the future. Why did the Board choose not to interview Cantors to directly replace Cantor Rhodes? CBS should have been in that cycle since October 2014. This has never been fully explained to the congregation. Will it save money? I don't know, you are paying Cantor Levine to do Cantorial work, then hiring an assistant to take over some of the education duties, a High Holiday Cantor and who knows what other changes decided upon without congregation knowledge. If the Board was more transparent and explained what they wanted to do to the congregation, I imagine that the congregation would vote okay. However, with the past Board decisions that have violated or suspended the constitution, how are we to trust this is in our best interest with so little information from the current Board? At our Havurah meeting last month President Allan Goldstein said that the Board members were supposed to solicit opinions from the congregants. Out of 8 families, none were included in those surveys. Nobody any of us knew had said anything to us about a survey. Is that the proper way to solicit input? Maybe just "special" people were asked and we weren't supposed to know about it. I worry about the image in the community if we don't have a Cantor. Everyone else does, to my knowledge, especially for shuls our size. When potential new members come to CBS and consider joining, are they told we won't have a Cantor for the next year, or maybe two years, or maybe three years, or some other time span? Does that affect their choice of shul, especially
Music/Cantor are the heart of the synagogue. Sincerely hope CBSreconsiders!
Music/Cantor are the heart of the synagogue. Sincerely hope CBSreconsiders!
Although I write here as a member of CBS, I am also a member of the CBS Board. I appreciate the thoughtful position set forth and leadership provided by Moshe Vardi and welcome this opportunity for dialog. It is important that anyone interested in this subject read the background documents that Moshe provided at goo.gl/zOuEDh and http://goo.gl/FTTcVx. As Moshe states, the issue is whether or not the Constitution requires that that Congregation have a Cantor. This is very important because, as I understand it, neither Moshe nor the petition is intended to challenge the decision of the Board and clergy to implement an innovative strategy for bringing exciting new musical opportunities to the Congregation by trusting in Rabbi Teller's musical talents and engaging the magnificent, operatic abilities of David Krohn for special occasions (including the High Holidays). Services at Brith Shalom are expected to be more engaging and more meaningful under this new model. With regard to the constitutional question, I think it clear that the Congregation is not required to retain a Cantor. To me, Moshe answers this question correctly when he says "The CBS Constitution does not explicit[ly] say that the Congregation 'shall have a Cantor' or that it 'shall have a Rabbi' . . . . In contrast, the Constitution says that the Congregation shall have a Board, a President, Vice Presidents, and a Secretary." The constitution does not require that clergy be retained for good reason. Suppose, for example, the shul is unable to afford to fill a Cantor position. Would we still be required to hire a Cantor? Of course not. While a case can be made that the the constitution assumes that a Cantor will be hired because that has been the norm for most of Brith Shalom's history, it does not require such a hire. The Constitution is clear on this point, even though it sets forth procedures for the selection of clergy should new clergy be retained. Change can be difficult but it is importa
Not sure what my position is one way or another but the board at least needs to explain their position
Not sure what my position is one way or another but the board at least needs to explain their position
Having a cantor is very important to us especially since our daughters will be having a bat mitzvah in the next few years. A meeting is definitely warranted.
Having a cantor is very important to us especially since our daughters will be having a bat mitzvah in the next few years. A meeting is definitely warranted.
The decision and future plans warrant a congregational hearing
The decision and future plans warrant a congregational hearing
I value having a cantor very much. I am curious as to why no timeline was established for commencing a search for a new cantor, even if the search is for the year 2016..
It is a good idea.
While we believe the board is operating with the best of intentions, we also feel that this is a big enough issue that it warrants congregational input.
Congregation MUST be involved but we know historically that CBS Constitution is ignored or changed to suit some. FYI the real issue is fiscal and lack of transparency, once again. Mark & Fran Katzenellenbogen
Before such a seemingly radical change to our conservative shul, it would be nice to have been provided more details, more input. Alas, I'm just a simple congregant. And I should be thrilled at the prospect of relegation to a traditional service held in some closet, should I not prefer the format changes/agree with the board's infinite wisdom. Thankful for those who put this petition together.
Being for or against the action by the Board is immaterial. What is important is that proper procedures be followed to get input from the Congregation.