Below are comments from Havurah members about the governance changes proposed at our Annual Meeting on April 17.

Bob Brown
1. I am concerned about the proposed timeline. The comment period is currently open. Comments will be collected and based on the comments, by-laws changes will be created and must be sent 10 days prior to the June 5 meeting (May 26th). There doesn't seem to be enough time for feedback from the comment period and to make the changes needed by June 5th. There will be lots of pressure put upon the congregation to approve the changes on June 5th. One possible solution would be to develop an Interim plan to implement with a specific timeframe to evaluate how the implementation is going. Basically, I am concerned that there isn't enough feedback from
2. It seems that the Nominating Committee could easily be a "subcommittee" under the GB.  
3. The cluster concept works well and was well thought out for all clusters except for Tikkun Olam, in my opinion. The only other function the Tikkun Olam incorporates is JCRC liaison. In effect, the TO cluster is a cluster of one. This may be OK but read on. Tikkun Olam is unique in its relationship within and outside our community. It is the committee that has a focus both internally and externally to Havurah. As such, this committee has a particular need to be involved/informed with some other committees of other clusters. In particular, the TO work of the congregation connects with education (all committees of this cluster), Governing Body for various endorsements, and membership. What I am wondering is how does the currently proposed structure enable or improve on the current situation to solve some of the problems you (correctly) identified?

1. We understand that the timeline seems fast; however, there is a sense of urgency because of the difficulties we are seeing with the current structure. The proposal is to move forward, with the understanding that there might need to be additional implementation steps, and perhaps even additional by-laws changes. It seems appropriate to ask the implementation effort to include an evaluation/assessment of how things are going, and whether additional changes are needed, so we will make sure that is part of the next steps. [NOTE: it seems as though part of your comment was cut off in the email that we received.] 
2. That is a good suggestion, and there has already been some discussion about the importance of the Nominating Committee being a standing committee. Having it as subcommittee of Steering makes a lot of sense.
3. There was quite a bit of discussion during the Gesher process about the interactions between and among all of the five areas of the Long Range Plan. We appreciate your perspective that Tikkun Olam has those connections, but we think that the interconnections are even more extensive than that. There was an additional visual (HERE) that we feel provides the “real” context for our community. We didn’t use it in the presentation because we tried to streamline things to be able to present the overall concepts, but we  think these are the communication pathways we need to create both internally and externally. There will be challenges, but we are hopeful that the clusters with leads on Steering will be a step forward.

Thanks again for your comments.

Susan Brenner
Presumably minor Holidays (Chanukah, Tu B'shevat, Purim, Pesach, etc.) would fall under the Avodah heading, but I don't see them specifically mentioned in the diagram. Has thought gone into who is responsible for those holidays? It's been an ongoing problem of how those holidays get planned and celebrated. I like the look of the new structure. It's probably a better reflection of how we are actually organized. And it is easier to work in a smaller group. Nice work!

Thanks for your feedback, Susan. We talked a lot about the lack of ownership of the holidays and brainstormed a few solutions. You are correct so far, it is not specifically laid out. One possibility that we discussed is forming a holiday committee. This is something that is being considered as we move forward with a new structure. We don't have the answer yet, but we will keep trying to find a solution to this long-running dilemma.

Barbara Simon
Congratulations on a stellar congregational meeting.  I thought the folks who attended were engaged and enthusiastic.  You asked for some feedback about the new organizational chart so I wanted to share my thoughts before they vanish into thin air. I like the cluster approach A LOT and have only one suggestion.  I think you need to clearly define what being the “lead” means (i.e. serve as a conduit between committees and the steering committee (or GB) and vice –versa and create some consistent minimum requirements for all leads (i.e. convene an annual  meeting of all committee chairs within a cluster or have monthly updates of all committees within a cluster (can be an email, phone call or personal meeting) or whatever you think is appropriate.

Gesher: We definitely talked about having clarity on what the leads are responsible for. In our heads, it is very much modeled on how Eve Berry served as VP for Education and was our connection to LLC, Shabbat School, Middle School and High School.  As you pointed out, it must be described specifically.

Cindy Merrill
The new Governing Body doesn't seem to have a recording/executive secretary position. Who will be responsible for taking down meeting minutes, including decisions and action items? That's an important role. 

Cindy – We discussed a few possibilities for this function, including rotating among the members of the governing body, making the Past President responsible for the minutes, or having them recorded by a staff member.  We agree this is an important area that needs to be covered, but as part of limiting the number of people on the Governing Body and tying the roles more closely to our five focus areas, we feel it can be covered in a different way than it is currently.

Michael Heumann
I am in favor of the proposed change in governance, and I sincerely hope that the selection of people to step forward as candidates for leadership, who will represent the different committees, will be able to come from the members of each committee. This will help ensure that someone with actual interest and understanding in what the committee does will be representing those interests on the governing body. I also want to remind Havurah that we have access to leadership development and training through our membership in the Metropolitan Alliance for Common Good (MACG). The training has proved helpful for many members over the years. More that 40 people have taken the training, but very few in recent years.

Thank you for your feedback. We agree that the candidates for steering committee spots should have experience working with specific committees. We would add that an overall broad experience in various areas of participation across Havurah is also important.  This is not something that would be included in the proposed by-laws changes, but instead is something that should be included in the charge for the nominating committee who selects potential steering committee members. 

Thank you for your suggestion of using MACG for leadership training. We have identified an issue that is true across Havurah that there is a need for better leadership development. Our recommendation is to create a new Leadership Committee which would be charged with helping committees to find and train members and work on leadership tracking in committees and committee clusters.