New constitution plan for Board is opposed
THE BOARD of Deputies is proposing to set up a committee to vet future candidates for an expanded executive under new reforms due to be debated later this month.
While its governing trustees currently consist of the Board’s president and four honorary officers, the plan is to elect four additional trustees. But some of the changes, due to be discussed by deputies on Sunday week, are already being contested.
Under the proposed reforms, the four extra trustees would have specific portfolios with responsibility, for example, for fundraising.
A new “nominations committee” would be given the power to “decide whether in its reasonable opinion any such candidate complies with the relevant role description”.
Although the committee could not stop a candidate from standing as trustee, it would be able to make recommendations to the voting deputies.
But the proposal is being challenged by Dr Vicki Harris, a deputy for Hampstead Garden Suburb Synagogue, who has tabled a number of amendments. “It lacks transparency and accountability,” she has told deputies. “Further, it suggests in a patronising way that some deputies might not be suitable even to be considered for election instead of allowing democracy to run its course.” Dr Harris and three other deputies have called for the debate to be independently chaired, saying the honorary officers were “conflicted” because they had approved the proposals and therefore “should play no part” in controlling the meeting.
Dr Harris wishes to limit a trustee to two three-year terms — unless they were to go on to stand for president — whereas the proposals would allow a person to serve as a trustee for 12 years in different roles.
She is also unhappy at the prospect of trustees having the power to remove a trustee or deputy without giving a reason. “This is a new disturbing proposal which lacks transparency, accountability and is unjust,” she said. “If a democratically elected trustee is to be removed, it should only be possible following a due process naming a breach of the code of conduct.”
The proposed constitution at various points says trustees should act on “the advice” or “recommendation” of the president but Dr Harris believes trustee decisions should act according to their own views.
Another deputy, who did not wish to be named, told the JC, “Some of the proposed changes are needed to protect the Board’s potential liability and make it fit for the 21st century. However, many of the proposed changes will make the Board less democratic, less transparent than it currently is and will give the president too much power — many deputies oppose these proposals.”
“One proposal will enable trustees to remove a trustee or a deputy without giving reasons - surely in a democratically elected organisation, a trustee could be removed after due process.”