March 26, 2025
Friends,
We've been told that we must do something to secure our future. This is true. We've also been told that there is only one option, merging with Rodef Shalom, and it is urgent. This is false. Even if it were true, we must follow an open, democratic process with full transparency. We're not. Until that changes, we must vote No. A "no" vote does not preclude future discussions. A "yes" vote for merger recklessly binds us.
We do not have equal access to discuss the matter. The steering committee controls email communications, and small parlor meetings ensure that we cannot hear each others' questions and concerns. This approach hides concerns and rushes us to a vote without the information we need. The process is designed to get to "yes", not to be open and transparent. Our leaders have good intentions but terrible methods. The ends do not justify the means.
We have failed to consider other options. We are not the first congregation in Pittsburgh to face declining membership and aging buildings. Due diligence calls for us to examine all options, not just merger and not just merger with Rodef.
We need to know what "nearly unanimous" means for this vote. Before, not after, it is taken.
If we are to merge, we must address important outstanding issues first:
We need a chance to review the draft bylaws and financial details. We are talking about legally dissolving Temple Sinai, creating something new, and transferring millions of dollars in assets. It is essential that we know how this will be governed and paid for and that we agree.
We must consider the negative effects, not just the positive ones. Will this fix the problem or just defer it for a decade? How much attrition are we comfortable with? Are we OK with pushing people out of our community and the Reform movement? Can we reconcile dues in accordance with our values?
There are many unanswered questions. We must all have the opportunity to hear the questions and the responses. In order to vote in good conscience we need data, not marketing; open communication, not spin and fragmentation.
Many of us have questions. It appears there will be no public forum where we can ask them and hear all the answers. You can email me your questions and I will post them here for all to see. If our leaders email me responses, I will post those too. Let's work together to share our questions and whatever answers are available.
I respect the members of the steering committee and all the work they and others have put into this project. They are trying to do what they think is best for Temple Sinai. This is a large task and they must be feeling overwhelmed. But the work is not complete. They have asked us to not worry about that, have faith, and sign a blank check. It is reckless for us to vote based on hope rather than knowledge. We risk dismantling what we already have only to see its replacement fail.
We have to make important decisions about our future. We must do so in a principled, values-based way. We are not just a social club; we are a Jewish community that values integrity, honesty, and inclusion. We must not throw away our values just to "get this done".
Text study is at the core of Judaism, so I end with a lesson from the talmud (Bava Metzia 62a). Two men are walking in the desert with one bottle of water. If they share it, both will die before they reach civilization. If only one drinks it, he will survive but his friend will not. Ben Petura says they should share and die together; Rabbi Akiva says the owner of the bottle should drink it, because your life takes precedence. We follow Rabbi Akiva.
Temple Sinai and Rodef Shalom are in the desert. We must see to our own health first, and trust that they can see to theirs.
Monica Cellio
Active member since 1999
Past trustee (three terms)
Past member of bylaws committee
Past chair of Neshama Center
Further Notes
The process is biased, not open and transparent.
We expect transparency and democratic processes for important community decisions. This has not happened. Our leaders control congregation-wide communication, are using biased language and fear to push a desired outcome, and are fragmenting the conversation and deterring open discussion. We lack important voting guarantees. Even if I agreed with their goal, this flawed approach does not align with our Jewish values.
The steering committee, through the Temple Sinai mailing list, has sent many messages advocating for this change. On Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year, they used the pulpit to promote their position. They have published their views in the press, knowing that if any of us speak up there, we will be accused of airing dirty laundry in public.
They have not allowed other perspectives the same access to the public square. We need the opportunity to hear the concerns of everyone on an equal footing. The use of the mailing list, pulpit, meetings, and press to promote one side of the discussion shows bias and a lack of integrity. This is not how our community makes decisions.
We had a single town-hall meeting (with questions still pending), and thought there would be more opportunities to discuss our options openly. Instead, the steering committee plans to hold small "parlor meetings" for Q&A. This structure ensures that discussion is fragmented, so that those with concerns will not know how many others share them. The effect is to make those of us with misgivings think we are alone.
Voting guarantees have not yet been met.
At the town hall, the steering committee said that this decision needs to be "near-unainmous", not merely a vote of 50% of quorum plus 1. At that meeting I asked what the threshold would be. I have asked this question several times since then. I have yet to receive an answer.
According to our bylaws, this decision could be made by a handful of people. We have been promised that this will not be the case. We need specifics:
- How many people must be heard from for us to consider the decision valid at all (quorum)? At least 50% sounds fair.
- What supermajority must vote in favor? For "near-unanimous", at least 90% sounds fair.
- How will we include people who cannot attend a meeting for a vote? We should have a plan for secure mail-in votes. (I can help with that.)
We are considering only one option.
We are not the first Pittsburgh congregation with shrinking membership and a building problem, yet others have not jumped to merger as a solution. We need to seriously explore other options, such as:
- Downsizing our current real-estate holdings.
- Seeking tenants so we can keep the building.
- Selling the building and renting space so we are not responsible for expensive maintenance.
- Working with other congregations (not necessarily Jewish) to share a building as separate communities.
- Merging with a different congregation.
Merging with Rodef Shalom is not obviously the best path for us, but it is the only proposal on the table. It is also not obvious that the proposed merger fixes the problem, rather than merely deferring it for a decade or two. If we are to dismantle Temple Sinai and distribute its assets, we should be confident that this really is a long-term fix for our children and grandchildren.
We must see and approve the bylaws of the new congregation.
The bylaws are the "constitution" by which an organization operates. Governance is critical. As we've seen in the secular world, when the rules by which a body operates are unclear (or not followed), chaos results.
Even changing our own bylaws requires advance publication and a vote. There are good reasons for this. We should apply at least that much care before adopting a brand new constitution.
We must see the financial analysis.
Our board and officers have a legal obligation to make sure the proposed finances and transition aresound, and if we value transparency, any interested member should have a chance to see the details. We should not settle for a high-level summary minutes before a vote.
In addition to questions about the operating budgets and endowments, we need to understand the effects of lost Legacy Circle donations and other designated gifts, which do not automatically transfer to a new legal entity.
We must reconcile the dues model in a way that is consistent with our values.
When Temple Sinai voted to change from fixed dues to a pledge system, it was after two years of discussion about our core values. Rodef uses fixed dues as we previously did. If we use Rodef's systemm, then we are abandoning those core values we identified. If we use ours, we are imposing our values on Rodef without them having the chance to consider as we did. We must neither lightly give up our values nor impose them on others.
We must openly discuss attrition.
If we merge with Rodef Shalom, some of our current members will leave. Some will join other (non-Reform) congregations instead, and some will cease to affiliate. One of the stated reasons for this merger is to somehow combat declining affiliation particularly in the Reform movement.
How much attrition is acceptable? How much is desired? Is pushing some people out of the organized Jewish community consistent with our values?
A note about language
Words matter. Language shapes perception. The steering committee is using a biased framing while shunning a neutral one. "Unification" sounds like the natural state of things, to which we should "obviously" aspire. It has echoes of tearing down the Berlin wall, of reuniting families, and so on. But according to our leaders, Temple Sinai did not break away from Rodef Shalom; we were never one congregation. The proposal is to create something new. "Unification" is, to put it bluntly, marketing spin.
"Merger", on the other hand, is a combination of equal partners. It is neutral, not negative. (When one entity swallows another, that's an acquisition.) The consultant has a background in corporate mergers and acquisitons and surely knows the difference. This misuse of language is one more part of the push for "yes".
Questions?
Have questions for our leaders? Email them to me and I'll publish them here. If we get answers, I'll publish those too. Let's open up our communications!