...where honor and respect meets responsibility and liability.
This is a real life situation, so please do not tweak the facts when/if providing your opinion in the comments:
-There exists a young congregation with an already large and growing membership.
-The success of the congregation is directly attributable to its Rav, he is the draw.
-There are plans to purchase land and build a shul; total costs will run into the millions of dollars.
-Due to the relative youth of most of the membership there is a built in limit to how much money will be able to be raised. These are young families with limited disposable income.
-Therefore, it is almost assured that a very large loan will need to be obtained in order to get the shul where it wants to go.
These are the facts of the case, and they are undisputed.
Now then, under such circumstances there will need to be individuals willing to guarantee the loan. These individuals will need to provide collateral in case the loan is defaulted on. In most cases these people put up their houses or some other possession.
Being that the Rav is the reason for the success of the shul, and that if he left the shul would quickly fall apart (again I restate that this is an undisputed given) is it fair/allowed for the membership to request that he be one of the people to sign on the loan, and therefore become financially “on the hook”?
The thinking being that, “we are building you this shul and taking on a commitment for you, we would like some type of commitment in return”. The fear being that, absent this quid pro quo, the Rav could get a better offer and depart for a better position, leaving others “holding the bag” on the loan.
So, do you feel that asking him to be one of the guarantors is okay/right/allowed or is it disrespectful and not b’kavodik? So long as he gives his assurance that he is committed to the shul there should be no reason for any further action. He is the Rav and you take him at his word.
Very interesting and difficult scenario.
ReplyDeleteHow long is this project supposed to be? If it were not a success (whatever defines success) after X number of years, would the Rav be expected to stay?
I wonder if it would fair to come up with a number of years that the Rav would be expected to stay; should the Rav agree to stay that X number of years, then perhaps it would make more sense to get *that* under contract than to place him as a guarantor on the loan. Otherwise, even if he stayed, other factors could stick him with paying back a loan despite his best efforts, which does strike me as not right to him.
In other words, don't force him to be a guarantor on the loan, just ensure that he signs a contract that is for an appropriate and corresponding length.
like ezzie, make sure he signed a lease that he should stay in certain years, if he refused to sign that bc he feared that he doesn't know the future. Make 1 or 2 year of lease that he could sign (assuming he accept the job)
ReplyDeleteI'd have to go along the lines of the first two commentors. I'd think having the Rav sign a contract would be the first thing to ask. If he had signed a contract, that might be the answer to the question seeing as the success of the kehila is dependant on him. If he's contractually bound to his service in the community, that means he's not going anywhere for a while, hence, possibly more success and growth for the community, which in itself is a guarantee (ie growth of community = more members = more membership dues = pay off loan quicker).
ReplyDeleteA standard contract accomplishes very little.
ReplyDeleteWhat's to prevent a Rav from just walking out on the agreement?
As noted in the offline discussion, to be fair, that part is no different from any other Rav walking out on a contract. If the issue is "ah, but here there is also this other factor", then the Q is solely a Rav integral to the continuity of a shul should therefore accept a higher level of responsibility.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of that Q, I'd have to say probably yes, but in as nice a way as possible (such as the contract above). To some extent, a contract - even while it's true, it's hard for it to be binding (though that *could* be done) - shows a higher level of commitment by the Rav, and should be enough.
the Q is solely a Rav integral to the continuity of a shul should therefore accept a higher level of responsibility.
ReplyDeleteGiven a situation where the shul will be taking on a huge financial responsibility in order to build him a shul...yes, that it the question.
What's to prevent a Rav from just walking out on the agreement?
ReplyDeleteUmmm, how about the LAW? What prevents Derek Jeter (the yankee game is on in the background) from walking out and just heading to another team.
I meant a *real* contract. As in, legally binding, with specific clauses that state amounts that must be payed for failing to provide services and fulfill obligations outlined to some degree of detail in said contract. I think an actual contract, with like, lawyers and the whole shebang, should do a decent job securing monetary protection to a particular interest, should there be breach. If the Rav wasn't responsible for the loan before he breaches his contract, he'll certainly help with the mortgage payments after the court makes him pay.
However I undertsand what Ezzie means, that you were trying to go the other direction and ask whether the Rav should be required to shoulder such a responsibility or not. To that question I'd say that it would certainly be a noble thing for a Rav to bear the brunt of a monetary obligation together with his community. However, if the community pays the Rav's salary, it's essentially the community just giving the Rav a pay cut by him contributing. The other factor that would probably change things up is if the Rav had another source of income, like for example, served as a Rebbi in some yeshiva or worked for the OU or something, or just owned a business or whatever, (or had a wife who was a big time Dr... I know I've heard that one before) then I can't see why it would be inappropriate to ask the Rav to take on some of the debt as well, and like I said above, it would certainly be a respectable thing for him to do.
I would love to hear if there're any Shailos/Tshuvas written up on this subject of a modern Rav's fiscal obligation to his kehilla. Since I know like zero Torah though, I hope someone is going to look that up.
This sounds like a familiar scenario to me. Awfully familiar.
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like a familiar scenario to me. Awfully familiar.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure as to the point of such a comment.
I was up front that this is a real life scenario. It may be the one you are thinking of, it may not.
Either way, it would be very irresponsible to take this away from being an anonymous situation.
Clearly every situation is different and has its own unique issues, the question here was purposely left to only deal with the broad issue.
I have no idea if this is even an option or being considered in the given situation. I am only presenting a possible scenario and asking for opinions.
Don't panic. I don't roll unanonymously. Bottom line, I feel is that best case scenario is for there to be a big time donor in these buildings or don't build em. Best, best case scenario is when the Rav brings his own money because then the building gets built and the Rav has all the power which is how it should be in my book. I don't know. Carry on.
ReplyDeleteDon't panic.
ReplyDelete--Don't worry.
As for the rest of your comment, please refer to the following two line from the post:
--please do not tweak the facts when/if providing your opinion in the comments
--These are the facts of the case, and they are undisputed.
Your proposed 'bottom lines', 'best case scenario' and 'best,best case scenario' are not relevant as they are not the reality.
If you wish to actually put a little effort into this and comment on the stated scenario, as requested, instead of re-working the situation so as to remove the difficulties that actually make it something that requires a modicum of thought, please feel free.
Carry on.
whether the Rav should be required to shoulder such a responsibility or not...if the community pays the Rav's salary, it's essentially the community just giving the Rav a pay cut by him contributing.
ReplyDeleteNo, no. The case is not of one where there is a request for actual up-front money from the Rav.
The request is one of assumed liability. If things progress as they should the Rav would not be out a dime.
I'm not quite sure what the difference is, but if that's the case it seems like even more of a reason for the Rav to take on some of the liability.
ReplyDelete