mentalblog.com comments:
It's a sound decision thoughtfully balancing 1st amendment rights - I think what swayed the court was Oster's refusal to submit what was essentially an ecclesiastical dispute to the bes din and the court was particularly underwhelmed with his (lawyer's) attempt to clothe the argument in corporate lingo.
Note - they (the appellate court)are not deciding on the merits rather procedurally, whether the civil court has jurisdiction over the dispute so there's hope yet for all of you who feel Chabad is merely a landgrabbing, nepotistic power trip (but don't hold your breath waiting for such relief from the Circuit Ct of Appeals or Billy R n' the Supremes)
Re Beis Din. People do not tell me the entire story. But I did hear a person say "Beis Din lied to us". So this is not as simple as presented in the ruling. I will try to find out more about this important aspect of the story.
Court ruling: I happen to think that the court’s apprehension regarding setting a precedent for a "rouge take-over" of religious institutions is rather sensible. I AM NOT (!) SAYING THAT SUCH WAS THE CASE HERE!!! I am saying, however, that one could easily imagine a situation were the religious leader’s only fault is his naïveté in procedural matters, whereas the lay leader’s only virtue is his sophistication in the same. But this ruling’s implications for lay people are very different than for shluchim.
Lay people: The ruling simply means that the best way to deal with unhappy school situation is the same as way TA is dealing with his untenable "shul" situation. Rather than fight it out in courts, lay people should simply start their own schools. (At the end of the day they are the ones that carry the bulk of the budget already.)
Sheluchim: The ruling is most likely going to further weaken the position of the subordinate shluchim vis-à-vis "heads of states". This because - following the recent Cunin vs. Naparstak ruling in CA - this case solidifies the authoritarian hold on power of the "head shluchim" and makes it more difficult to challenge that power in the court of law, should such need arise.
It takes time to build from scratch. NHA was in MA for many years. It accumulated real estate and funds. This is not something that can be recreated overnight in area with the most expensive real estate in the country. What has been build in the name of Jewish people is delivered by the court to the sole discretion of an individual family.
The "built in the name of Jewish people" argument is a red herring. If the allegations against the people running the school were in the realm of fund misappropriation - you would have a point. But since only maters of policy & governance were debated – that argument is irrelevant. Remember, the "Jewish people" that supported the school all these years certainly knew who was making all the policy decisions - yet it did not deter them from donating. And I bet most of the donors never even knew there was a Board of Directors in the school bylaws.
To summarize: People that are not happy have the right to vote with their feet & pocket books and compete in the free market environment. Crying foul over the fact that the other guy had a 40 years head start is really pathetic. If Dr.Oster & Co. really have great ideas on Jewish education & "mean business", all the advantages the existing entity has over them will not mean a thing. American corporate history is replete with more impressive David vs. Goliath examples.
"And I bet most of the donors never even knew there was a Board of Directors in the school bylaws."
Are you serious? People give money on a whim, thinking that a bunch of petty dictators are the only ones in charge and can do what ever they want?
berel you are so right
oster just wanted to take over rabbo ciments funds to run the school his way, rabbi ciment worked hard to raise those funds. lets see him try and open a school and fundraise the proper amount to pay the budget. a kunz to do that on someone elses credit and hard work.
the friediker rebbe gave rabbi ciment his authority to do what he is doing
and lubavitch is not a democracy nor is any rebbe chosid relationship nor is the jewish religon a democracy we cannot out vote shulchan aruch we cannot out vote a cohen and make him a yisroel or vica versa. ok so i am rambling on sorry
the point is i give my all to harav reb chaim ciment (as the rebbe called him berabim by a farbrengen)may he live and be well till moshiach
and yes i learnt in boston
good night to all
"To summarize: People that are not happy have the right to vote with their feet & pocket books and compete in the free market environment. Crying foul over the fact that the other guy had a 40 years head start is really pathetic."
So what you are saying is that the organization may not be taken over from the inside, but a competing entity must rather be built from scratch. Isn't THAT what happened in Chicago? Did the HS there allow them to do it without threat or favor? I think not! So what are the other options? Change cities, states, countries?
I think I read somewhere that the Rebbe prefered a trust rather than a corporation. If the entity is a trust, and the only ones who can appoint new trustees are the existing trustees, then we have a built-in formula for nepotism that can never be broken. It is legally impossible to "take-over" a trust. It appears that the court ruling is, in effect, doing just that - giving the leader the power of a trustee.
Lizman,
I said nothing of the sort that you allege.
Boruch,
Regardless of what the HS wanted, Chicago has a competing school - whatever its dubious merits.
Well far be it from me to support those meshugoim in Chicago, I’m talking in theoretically.
But it’s not so simple. Threats are and were used against siblings of children attending the new school. This formula is widely used by the ruling clique to stifle decent. So when you say: start a new school, in many places that is impossible, and I think you would know that.
http://www.chicagoanash.com
http://www.chicagoanash.org
I don't see the cause for other Jewish schools to be alarmed. In this case Rabbi Ciment was sent to start his own school and was expected to run it as he saw fit. Having input from parents is important but the Principal cannot be forced to adhere to their suggestions. I'm sure Dr. Oster is a well-meaning person, but I guess he does not understand how the school was told to be run by the Rebbeyim. Chicago is a totally different situation, and I would bet that the poster who tried to compare the two is not arguing out of love of the evicted party in that case, but rather out of dislike for the victors, as can be evidenced by the link he went on to post in his subsequent comment.
Now you take that back! ;) I'm trying to be impartial here. I actually have nothing against the victors in Chicago, and I did not post the link.
I'm simply bringing an example of what the ruling clique will do, regardless of who they are and what the reasons are to open another school.
If so, how can you compare the two? In Chicago the principal was fired by the person who hired her. Plain and simple. She then went on to start her own school, using the name Lubavitch, which she has no authority do.
So if she had not used the name Lub, then no action would have been taken against her and children and parents would not threatened?
Halakhicly, the school and its buildings, etc. belong to the COMMUNITY. In a dispute like this, the community's BEIT DIN needs to ensure that a) the school is being properly run, b) no funds have been stolen or misused, c) that the buildings or their monetary value stay within the community, and d) no secular laws are being violated by the school.
If MA requires non-profits to have a functioning board and to follow its declared bylaws, and certainly if the school originally agreed to this, that agreement has the force of halakha.
Since this case seems to revolve around the seating of a legal board and the enforcement of those bylaws, rather than the *actions* of a legal board and its enforcement of those bylaws, it would appear that al pi din the school is wrong.
But the couts dislike intervening in religion/state affairs, and will refuse to do so on various grounds unless compelled to do otherwise.
In large part, this is why so much 501 (c) (3) fraud exists in the Orthodox community.
As a practical matter, the only solution is competition. But that leaves treasured community resources in less-than-reliable hands.
As for the harassment that often brings down on the new school or the new shul, that will continue unabated until the Jews that fund the harassers' organizations stop giving or until the Federal Government proceedes with its long-rumored prosecution to crack down on these non-profit abuses and abusers.
I am disappointed that the argument has broken along the party lines again. Avremel is voting for the party, Berl, plays objectivity with a party twist, Lizman, merits of your school can be seen in your writing, etc.
You all removed yourself from the main point. The school was DEAD. No classes just the building. I repeat the management has run the school into the ground as they did Lubavitcher girls school, the building was sold last month (another post perhaps). All due to years of incompetence. A group of parents came together to revive the school. At that time there was no competition because there was no school. Naturally the parents wanted a voice but the court took that right from them. Do you get the differences?
This is an important conversation. Please do not comment on a whim. Thoughtful contributions are requested.
Tzemach,
the building was sold? How is THAT the best way to fix the school? Does the shliach still keep the "name" so that he can continue collecting for the "school"?
Yossi, the building that was sold was the former Lubvitcher Girls School. Another property in R. Ciment's portfolio, not the NHA.
plays objectivity with a party twist
Wrong. I did not comment on the merits of the Boston case at all. My comments were addressed strictly to the implications of the case for other places [and thus the appropriateness of the court ruling] & on the virtues of competition.
"Party twist"? If the school was run by Shach from Misnadedville, I would still consider it immoral to conduct a court-sanctioned take-over of something that a man toiled for years to build [And the fact that money came in through fund-raising does not change this a bit]. How is that really different that what Cunin did to Naparstak?
What if Naparstak's scholl, due to his own incompetence, was dead and Cunin came in and build it up, brought other people in and then Cunin would have asked not for an ownership but for an equal voice in decision making?
Let me clarify again: My comments were on the wisdom of the court ruling, not on the (perhaps unfortunate) fall-out for the Boston case. Surely, you know that one man's "dead school" is another man's "thriving institute of Jewish Learning". I do not want the courts deciding who is right.
competition: is it "too late" now? (to borrow from Jackie Mason) There is an incredible hunger for decent (note I didn't even say "good") chinuch out there. Anyone who can do it - should just do it. Such a school would grow like a mushroom after a rain, lack of real estate not withstanding.
Re Cunin: I think that not only could he ask for a voice in a very-very hypothetical case you describe, but he would have the right to fire an incompetent sheliach (provided that an impartial בית דין ruled the sheliach was indeed incompetent). For if Cunin had no authority to do even that – his function as a "head sheliach" would be totally without purpose. But, alas, he only worries about getting rid of the competent ones, the ones he perceives to be a threat. [Still, allowing a head sheliach a measure of "say" does not mean that lay people should have the right to have "say" over the school administration objectives.]
If Merkaz, the Rebbe, nor any other authority in Chabad, never chose to exert accountable authority on mosdos, why would we think that the US court system would? (I apologize for the grammar of this comment.)
"In a dispute like this, the community's BEIT DIN needs to ensure that a) the school is being properly run, b) no funds have been stolen or misused, c) that the buildings or their monetary value stay within the community, and d) no secular laws are being violated by the school."
That's the funniest thing I have read all day! Maybe we should hire old age home residents in wheelchairs to police the streets of the S. Bronx.
"There has not been one person in history that voluntarily reformed or changed when challenged for a 0.0001% of his power."
NOT TRUE. One example that comes to mind is that of my political hero General Augusto Pinochet of Chile, who did far more than that - he basically relinquished all 100% of his power. (And a lot of good it did him, too!)
Alter Rebbe was also a revolutionary. There must have been a tremendous displacement of misnagdim throughout White Russia. And the feds were brought in to resolve the conflict. Back then on 19 Kislev the Supreme Tzar’s court also refused to get involved…
One serious note I am fascinated in the way power works on human personality, particularly in the Jewish real. Perfectly nice people undergo an amazing metamorphosis given the opportunity to dominate others. And suddenly all the talk about midos and the rest of naïve crap is out of the window. And the very same people are in charge of schools, teaching the young generation setting a live example of perpetual dysfunction.
Which is why you need a separation of powers, like exists in Crown Heights today.
Krinsky and Shemtov are in charge of the material assets, but one would not mistake them for having any spiritual authority
TA
Well said
Did anyone notice the Krinsky and Shemtov's claim to power is that they were apointed to the boards, see
http://www.mentalblog.com/2005/0...e-
menachem.html
and the MA Court says that the board is only a "statutory by-laws" fomality with no power.
As Reb Yoel is wont to say when presented by such a seeming contradiction: "es vent zach avu men ret"
tzemach - what the court is saying is not that the board or the by-laws have no power but that in essence the procedural niceties are like "d'rabanans" whereas the underlying purpose of the school (it's mission statement - ostensibly to spread Torah and yiddishkeit through Chabad philosophy) is the "d'oraisa" and the court doesnt wish to be the arbiter of whether or not the procedural adherence (or lack thereof) furthers the "d'oraisa" portion whose interpretation is obviously better left to those responsible for disseminating Chabad philosophy. The ct noted that it was almost disingenuous for Oster to clothe his arguments (which are essentially about the substantive issues behind the school) in superficial procedural disputes (is it really about the frequency of board meetings? c'mon you can do better than that) Since association in the school is voluntary, anyone who doesn't subscribe to the philosophy - as it is administered in that Mossad - is obviously free to go elsewhere. Shmarya's legal conclusions and p'sak halacha are both inapplicable - fortunately the court can see beyond procedural pettifoggery to underlying issues and their proper forums in which they should be adjudicated and it is to be commended for properly exercising restraint accordingly. Yes there will be claims of the ineffectual nature of the bes din and the usual "fox guarding the henhouse" diatribes but ultimately it makes sense to have Chabad set the agenda (or non-agenda) for a chabad mossad
SM
I agree. As a propogater and firm believer in said "fox guarding the henhouse" diatribe, it is distressing, but the court did indeed make the right decision, for a court of law. Now justice will not be served, but that is not the court's fault.
Will Oster be appealing to the next level?
"In a dispute like this, the community's BEIT DIN needs to ensure that a) the school is being properly run, b) no funds have been stolen or misused, c) that the buildings or their monetary value stay within the community, and d) no secular laws are being violated by the school."
That's the funniest thing I have read all day! Maybe we should hire old age home residents in wheelchairs to police the streets of the S. Bronx.
Of course it's funny. It's also sad. The system is so corrupt that no one in his right mind would expect the actual halakha to be followed. That was my point.
"and why didnt dr oster go to beis din ? as in all other lubavitch disputes they should have gone to vaad rabonei lubavitch ?"
Another attempt at comedy.
Commenting by HaloScan
