Is The United Synagogue's Affiliate System Fit For Purpose? Yes

Reynold Rosenberg - Thursday 4th 2010f March 2010

The United Synagogue's affiliates system has operated since the 1940s and the only threat to its viability is the United Synagogue. To quote the Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks: "The only people who are capable of threatening the future of the Jewish people are the Jewish people."

The Affiliate system is more than viable - it provides a strong basis for the US to achieve its 2008 manifesto objective: "To invite independent communities who subscribe to the ethos of the United Synagogue... to join our family". If the US destroys the affiliate system, what independent community would join a family whose clear aim is to dominate and take control?

Many organisations operate different tiers of membership and the US currently has three: constituent, affiliate and associate. However, it is now abusing the one-mile "rule" to enforce a "one-tier" structure. Rather than impose uniformity, we should, again quoting Lord Sacks, "teach all humanity the dignity of difference".

Affiliates support a vibrant local Jewish life in circumstances that are very different to those facing constituent synagogues. It is not unusual for 25-40 percent of an affiliate's membership to attend events such as a Friday night or Shabbaton dinner. How many constituents could achieve, or even cope with, such high levels of attendance?

Being largely self-governing, affiliates engender a spirit of "ownership", binding a community in which there are fewer and more widely-dispersed Jews.
The US has shown itself manifestly incapable of understanding or respecting affiliates' communities. Here is an example. In recent publicity, the US referred to "the few remaining affiliate communities".

By number, affiliates constitute more than one quarter of the communities of the US - hardly "a few".

Affiliates have repeatedly asked why the US is so obsessed with control but the US has always refused to discuss the issue - it seems happier to publish its arguments in the press than discuss them face to face with the affiliates.

Affiliates have repeatedly asked the US to explain the benefits of becoming constituents. The only answers have been: membership applications will not be blocked, fees will not increase (for a short time) and it's not as bad as you think.

To the US, the affiliates are so insignificant that it is not even aware of their true numbers. It is not prepared to discuss any concerns face to face with the affiliates and apparently has no positive arguments it considers adequate to persuade affiliates of the benefit of constituent membership.

What is clearly unfair is for the US to consume the affiliates into the quagmire of a US "one size fits all" bureaucracy in which the US's attention will be dominated by the current constituents to the detriment of the ex-affiliates.

Affiliates pay their way. Their per-capita contribution may be less than that of constituents but this is fair as they require, and use, fewer services from the US. Affiliates do not want a "free ride", where they receive full benefits such as with the funeral expenses scheme, affiliates pay exactly the same amount as constituents, as is only proper.

In contrast, it is unfair for the US to bully affiliates to pay for services they neither want or need, merely to subsidise constituents.

The affiliates offered a mechanism under which individual synagogues could "buy-in" additional services from the US where these would be of value, but the US has not been prepared to consider this. The logical conclusion is that the US cannot identify any services it could provide that would justify the price it would want to charge.

The affiliates are committed members of the US and we hope that the US will drop its fixation on controlling us, which can only serve to divide and damage Orthodox Judaism.

The US should focus on pursuing its mission of "connecting communities, large and small, to a vibrant Jewish life and Torah values".

The affiliates look forward to working with their fellow constituents to fulfil these aims - each in the way that best serves the needs of their respective communities.