10 Comments

1. Larry Kaufman  •  Jan 24, 2010 @12:36 pm

   The issue, it seems to me, is not so much recognition as what other perks come along with the big gift. In a congregation that introduces open seating for the High Holy Days, do we still reserve his traditional pew for Mr. Big-giver? Do we relax the bat mitzvah requirements for The Little Princess whose parents are capable of giving princely sums?

   I’m a lot less concerned about the public recognition than about the hidden recognition.

2. hherring  •  Jan 24, 2010 @2:02 pm

   Larry–a good point. You’ve teased out the implications of my thoughts. We can claim that we don’t make distinctions among members based on their giving, but that rarely happens in real life. I once had someone ask me about creating a special donors’ club, for thsoe who contributed $5K and above (adjusted for inflation, today it would be closer to $10K). Should such big givers be given reserved seating for designated synagogue events and high holiday services? What about reserved parking? Putting my own equalitarian bias aside, why shouldn’t those who can and do give large financial gifts in this voluntary age of giving be offered transparent recognition provided that those who contribute significant time and service are also recognized? I’m directing these questions more toward myself, but Larry and others–please weigh in. Thanks, Hayim

3. Fred Passman  •  Jan 25, 2010 @7:25 am

   I’m posting a very thoughtful comment from Fred Passman by email-Hayim.

   This is a “don’t get me started” type of topic Hayim.

   If congregational leadership is focused on building holy community, the answer depends on the definition of “special attention.” Every member of the community should receive special attention. This is a major means of helping each individual to feel connected. That of course is “special attention” in the best sense of the term.

   I suspect, that’s not what you are asking. Since my early adolescence, I’ve had a really hard time with the concept of position in the community being proportional to the size of one’s cash donations. The practice tends to devalue the many invaluable contributions of those members of the community who don’t necessarily have much disposable income, but who give tremendously of their time and energy. I have no problem with using naming, commemorative plaques, and similar forms of donor recognition, but have a serious problem when patronization translates into power. It’s not a given that the largest patrons are also those who are most spiritually invested in the congregation’s mission. I’ve seen too many congregations in which fear of the repercussions (read: donations from more senior, change adverse members) prevent congregations from creating the type of community life that increasing numbers of our 20-something, young adults are seeking. This dynamic robs the community of its future. The expedient capitulation to preconditions set by major donors may bring sorely needed cash in to meet a current need, but is likely to be destructive in the long term.

   A much better approach is to get benefactors to buy into the congregation’s vision/strategic plan and to support the plan financially, rather than to give major donors the sense that their money buys them a greater say in how the congregation functions. In this context, “special treatment” would appropriately include periodic updates on how the programs, spaces, materials made possible by their donations are progressing and who they are impacting the congregation. But the one dollar, one vote type of “special attention” is a recipe for disaster.

   Just my $0 perspective.

   Shavua tov, Fred Passman
   VP NJ Region USCJ
   Chair, Leadership Development Committee, USCJ
   Vice-Chair, Strategic Planning Committee, USCJ

4. Jordan Goodman  •  Jan 25, 2010 @4:51 pm

   Shalom All,

   Willow Creek Community Church raised $81 million between 2000-2004 in order to further the church’s vision and mission with a new 7200 seat auditorium and other strategic initiatives. Not just pledges; actual money collected! They have no debt. Their “books” are audited by an external accounting firm yearly. Notice that the dates are coincident with the bursting of “dot com” bubble (and subsequent recession). This is the power of a “heart thumping, God honoring vision and mission,” that I wrote about in my last response to Rabbi Hayim’s previous post.

   To the point of Rabbi Hayim’s question: Willow has no mention by name via plaque nor room naming, nor public announcement of any kind… etc., of any donors’ (large or small) names. None whatsoever! They celebrated their God given success as a congregation. Once again, this is the power of a “heart thumping, God honoring vision and mission.”

   My wager would be that Saddleback in CA (Rick Warren), as well as Northpoint
   near Atlanta have similar ingrained values and have a no “naming” policy as well.

   Re parking spaces: At Saddleback, newcomers and visitors are intentionally directed to the closest parking spaces. Now that’s a welcoming and values driven community!!!

   Halevai that we could even come close to being able to say any of this about ourselves.

   Biv’racha,
   Jordan

5. Justin Kerber  •  Jan 27, 2010 @6:10 am

   My Temple is one of the few Jewish congregations I know with a “no-naming” policy (and some very well-heeled members). The lack of plaques is consistently cited by the membership as one of the best things about the Temple.

   I was hoping to read about some other ways to recognize major givers without acting like they have “naming rights” as a corporation over a sporting venue. Thanks. –J

6. Jordan Goodman  •  Jan 27, 2010 @10:42 am

   Shalom All,

   A note of clarification: The $81 million raised was a campaign over and above their yearly operating budget at that time of over $21 million. this year’s annual budget is over $27 million!!

   Biv’racha,
   Jordan

7. hherring  •  Jan 28, 2010 @10:10 pm

   Justin–thanks for writing. The reality is that most congregations provide some sort of recognition for “major” donors. And, this isn’t a new phenomenon. Even some of the earliest synagogues uncovered by archeologists actually list donors! I’m not endorsing the practice-just acknowledging a reality that has been around for a long time.

   But, as Jordan points out, it’s possible to raise very significant funds without giving “naming rights.” I’ll raise your question on my Facebook page and let’s see what comes back.

   Rabbi Herring

8. Rabbi Jason Miller  •  Jan 28, 2010 @10:54 pm

   I’ve had the idea of continuing naming rights for donors, but flipping it on its head. So, if Bob Goldstein gives $5M to Temple Beth El, instead of naming it The Goldstein Family Beth El Sanctuary, Mr. Goldstein would be named “Temple Beth El’s Bob Goldstein.” Name changes in the Torah signified an increase in stature, so why would any donors need to be convinced any further?

9. Aaron Miller  •  Feb 9, 2010 @7:43 pm

   My student pulpit is under acute financial constraints. One of the fundraising efforts that the board is considering is having a “Naming Scroll” for Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur. This scroll, as the idea currently stands, will contain the names of everyone in the congregation who donates at least a certain amount to the congregation. It will be placed in the ark along with the Torah. It will be taken out at some point throughout the service and the names (and maybe even the amounts they gave as a part of the fundraiser) read out loud to the congregation during the service.

   My suggestion to the board member who suggested this (her former congregation had done this and it was a successful fundraiser) was as follows, and I would definitely appreciate any suggestions:

   I was uncomfortable with the idea for three primary reasons. The first reason was that I did not want the scroll in the ark “cahooting” with the actual Torahs, and it struck me as wrong to ask everyone to stand, open the ark, and take out the “not real Torah” pretending as though it were the real thing. The second reason was that my student pulpit has a strong culture of volunteerism. How do we recognize those in the congregation who gave their time? The third reason, as Hayim pointed to above, is that I think it is our role as a congregation to teach Jewish values, and this could be a real opportunity to teach the value of anonymous giving.

   My “counterproposal” to the board was to have a Torah-looking “scroll” unscrolled right outside the sanctuary so it would not have to be a part of a High Holiday service and people could see it as they walk in. Then, rather than having each individual’s name and the amount of money that they gave, the scroll could have a quote from Rambam’s Hilchot Tzedakah like, “For this is performing a mitzva for the sake of Heaven… in the times of the Temple, the righteous gave secretly, and the good poor drew sustenance anonymously.” Underneath this, we could have something like, “In honor of the righteous of all generations who have given of themselves anonymously, the Beth El community would like to honor the righteous of our congregation for anonymously contributing (dollar amount) for the preservation and furthering of our sacred community.” I’ll have to wordsmith that one, but you get the gist.

   What do you think? Are there options I am not thinking about? Are there counter proposals that I am not considering? What about the congregation’s volunteers? Assuming that “named gifting” publicly during the service would probably be more successful, are degrees of financial crisis where public giving should be encouraged over the anonymous ideal?

   As a 4th year HUC rabbinical student, I would appreciate any insight from the field you can offer.

10. Kerry Olitzky  •  Feb 12, 2010 @10:33 am

    Aaaron, I am with you–both in terms of your reaction and your suggestion. If you want to also recognize volunteers, perhaps you can devise a formula (hours=dollars) or just hours that would be placed in the same scroll.

Leave a Reply