Chabad Move To Take Over NYC Shul Blocked – For Now

Rabbi Jacobson “used dishonest and fraudulent means to present his followers as members,” by selling $325 ticket packages that included complimentary synagogue memberships, a detail a potential member could only find out by clicking on an “FAQ” section on his Web site.

Hurling Curses Amid The Whitefish
A tense meeting Sunday at the Sixth Street Community Synagogue revealed sharp divisions at the shul.
Sharon Udasin • New York Jewish Week

There is nothing remotely community minded about the war that is gripping the Sixth Street Community Synagogue.

Tensions at the East Village Orthodox shul, which have been building between old-timers and newly recruited younger members for six months, erupted last Sunday morning at a meeting to elect new board members.

The two sides hurled curses at one another in the shul basement, where a spread of whitefish salad and bagels had been laid out. At one point, someone suggested that the police be called in to restore calm. And when new member Spencer Schneider rushed into the hall urging members to vote on his yellow ballots, which touted a slate of new board members rather than the white ballots made up of more longstanding board members, he got an education in shul politics, East Village style.

“Who are you?” Schneider said when approached by a longtime member of the shul. The man replied, "I didn’t see you in shul yesterday.” 

The battle for the soul of the 70-year-old Sixth Street Community illustrates just how dicey it can be to try to revitalize flagging synagogues. Longtime members feel the shul — which has seen its membership double since last spring — is being stolen out from under them by carpetbaggers, new members who don’t even live in the neighborhood and who rarely attend services. The new members say they have revived a shul that was on its last legs, and that the old-timers want to strip them of their voting rights.
“We hoped that maybe someone who lived in the community would join,” Schoenfeld said. “I’d take a lie detector test — there’s not one new member that has been here on Friday night or Saturday. Not even their leaders.”

At the center of the struggle stands Rabbi Simon [sic] Jacobson and his Meaningful Life Center. A popular and charismatic Lubavitch-born rabbi and author, Rabbi Jacobson moved the center’s headquarters to the Sixth Street Synagogue two years ago. In lieu of paying rent to the shul, he agreed to renovate the entire basement floor and pay the synagogue 30 percent of the proceeds from his programs. 

Rabbi Jacobson told The Jewish Week that last spring he was approached by then-Board Chairman Matthew Pace, asking if he would encourage some of his participants to become shul members. The rest of the board was aware and in favor of a membership drive, part of which would solicit Rabbi Jacobson’s crowd as new members, according to board meeting minutes obtained by The Jewish Week.

“I said to them, ‘Are you sure that’s what you want? Because if people start becoming members, members are shareholders,’ ” Rabbi Jacobson said. “They said ‘We’re sure that’s what we want.’”

Within a few months of the initial membership drive, the synagogue population grew significantly. But for the old-timers, the effort seems to have backfired.

“The board was unaware that Pace and Jacobson intended all along to use this as a pretext to flood the shul’s member rolls with Jacobson’s followers,” said President David Landis, who is joined in his opinion by Treasurer Jack Lebewohl, of the Second Avenue Deli-owning family. Added Landis: “It was nothing more than a brazen plan to snatch a valuable building away from a community that had been using it for 70 years.”

Both Rabbi Jacobson and Pace vehemently deny the charge, calling Landis’ accusations “false and slanderous” and guaranteeing that board members were kept abreast of the process. But Landis and the rest of the board believe the rabbi simply ushered in members from Queens, the Upper West Side and as far away as Montreal, who neither intended to attend services at the shul nor were interested in preserving the East Village community.

Meanwhile, caught in the crossfire is newly minted Rabbi Greg Wall. An accomplished saxophonist working at the intersection of jazz and Jewish music, Rabbi Wall took over last fall. And in keeping with the shul’s revitalization efforts, he launched a Sunday afternoon concert series featuring some leading lights in the downtown Jewish music scene. But the rookie rabbi had no idea when he signed on to run the shul that he was walking into a hornets’ nest.

“If I had known that I was being courted for the job as rabbi while this was going on, I don’t know how involved I would’ve become,” Rabbi Wall said. “I felt helpless throughout the whole thing.”

At Sunday’s meeting, Rabbi Wall, who presided over the tense gathering, announced that members would only be qualified to vote for the new board of directors if they both gave money to the shul and attend services regularly, at least once per month.

“The idea wasn’t that they wanted to conduct a ‘Who is a Jew’ inquisition. They wanted to provide a standard that would apply to everyone,” Rabbi Wall said. “[Jack Lebewohl] told me he had to take his wife off the list because she doesn’t come to shul. There has to be some standard, and on the surface this seems like a fair one.”

By the end of the day, 155 people had voted for the white slate of board members that supported Landis and Lebewohl’s team, while 100 voted for the yellow ballot that included three veteran shul members (Pace, Raquel Mehlman and Michael Rosen) and 21 newcomers, according to Landis. After accounting for regular synagogue attendance and financial contributions, the final vote was 86-2 in favor of the white slate, Landis confirmed. Yet the opposing side argues that the vote was actually 100-83, in the new members’ favor. 

“If they had come [to services] I’d say they were full members,” Lebewohl said. “Unfortunately, the number of people from the Meaningful Life Center who participate in our synagogue are really negligible. Our goal was that you come in and participate.”

Rather than bring in practicing congregants, Landis says that Rabbi Jacobson “used dishonest and fraudulent means to present his followers as members,” by selling $325 ticket packages that included complimentary synagogue memberships, a detail a potential member could only find out by clicking on an “FAQ” section on his Web site. Most Meaningful Life participants who now claim membership were not even aware that they were joining a synagogue in the first place, Landis said. 

Rabbi Jacobson argues the allegations are “absolutely groundless,” adding that he explicitly encouraged people to become members, with only a handful joining through the Web site. 

Though Landis admits that the Center turned over the money to the synagogue as membership revenues, he insists that the efforts were underhanded and motivated by the desire for takeover. He said the board began investigating these memberships as soon as they “caught on” to what was taking place.

“I wasn’t notified that my membership was tabled,” said Shuli Hallak, a new member. “I think the Sixth Street Synagogue made a mistake when the checks were cashed.”

“I got a letter saying welcome to Sixth Street — I thought I was a member,” she added, noting that she made her check out to the shul and has attended Shabbat services. Hallak questioned the legality of repealing their memberships or voting rights.

“I don’t think it’s clear that they’re legally members,” Landis said. “But if people ask for a refund then I think we’ll just have to deal with that at the time.”

But to new members, this decision is not so clear, and some are considering taking legal action. 
“The way they’re doing the vote — they’re just not counting the new members,” said Spencer Schneider, a lawyer who sides with Rabbi Jacobson.

Lawyers for the synagogue had no comment but assured The Jewish Week that they were abiding by the law.

The new members had actually spearheaded the vote to begin with, demanding that the synagogue hold a fair board election, particularly since a board had not been properly elected in 10 years. After receiving no response from the board, the new members called for an election to occur on March 1, Rabbi Jacobson said, which then prompted the board to establish the Feb. 7 election.

“I always believe in inclusion,” said Pace, who believes he was essentially ousted from his long-held position as board chairman after siding with the new members. “I believe our synagogue is a synagogue for all Jews and we shouldn’t be deciding who should participate and who shouldn’t participate.”

Mehlman, one of the two other former board members to side with Pace, says she now feels ostracized by the vote, adding, “They consider me a traitor.” 

“There was never an intention of a takeover or a separate slate,” she said. “We wanted a combined slate with the majority old members and a few new members to infuse the shul with new energy,” she continued. Mehlman became so frustrated with the situation at the shul that she handed in her resignation on Jan. 24. “I don’t know what it’s going to take for the new members to convince the older ones that they’re not trying to take over.”

And as the tallying dragged on through Sunday afternoon, no one from either side seemed particularly happy. In a narrow corridor, new member Robin Blumenthal and longtime member Steven Schoenfeld engaged in a swearing match. Blumenthal had cursed at Schoenfeld following a squabble at the ballot box, adding, “Your behavior is insulting.”

“You guys are trying to invade this synagogue,” Schoenfeld retorted, upset that Blumenthal came to vote but never attends shul. “You’re a foreign presence here.”

Meanwhile, Hallak was simply disillusioned by both sides of the fighting, adding, “To come here on a Sunday morning and be accosted, it was humiliating.”

Like Hallak, who was hurt to see Jews fighting Jews, Rabbi Wall said he too was saddened by the situation, no matter what the outcome.

Both Rabbis Wall and Jacobson hope the fighting will calm down soon and that no lawsuits will be filed. 
“It basically just comes from misunderstanding,” Rabbi Wall said. “If the congregants and the Meaningful Life Center don’t have any contact with each other, then it’s very easy to vilify each other.”

As for the Meaningful Life Center location, Rabbi Jacobson says he is not sure he wants to renew his lease at Sixth Street when the contract expires in December. 

“I have to see how the dust settles,” he said. “I’m not interested in staying in a place that’s going to be fighting till the end of history.”

To me, the following graph clearly shows Rabbi Siman Jacobson's intent to defraud:

Rather than bring in practicing congregants, Landis says that Rabbi Jacobson “used dishonest and fraudulent means to present his followers as members,” by selling $325 ticket packages that included complimentary synagogue memberships, a detail a potential member could only find out by clicking on an “FAQ” section on his Web site. Most Meaningful Life participants who now claim membership were not even aware that they were joining a synagogue in the first place, Landis said. 

Chabad has a history of similar conflicts, both in New York City and worldwide. At the root of most of those conflicts seems to be Chabad's desire to get ownership of valuable real estate for little or no cost, as this synagogue's leadership discovered:

“The board was unaware that Pace and Jacobson intended all along to use this as a pretext to flood the shul’s member rolls with Jacobson’s followers,” said President David Landis, who is joined in his opinion by Treasurer Jack Lebewohl, of the Second Avenue Deli-owning family. Added Landis: “It was nothing more than a brazen plan to snatch a valuable building away from a community that had been using it for 70 years.”

For Chabad, this has been a good business model. It will continue to be so until the price for behaving this way exceeds the benefits Chabad gets for doing it. That will only happen when the Jewish community makes that happen – something that is not very likely.

Comments

[critical_minyan]

they should have made a deal with the hare krisnas or mormons instead of the chabad.
it may have been less confusing to the congregation.
its hard to tell a real authentic jew from a secret chabadnik.

[R]

Why don't people just stop dealing with chabad altogether. Don't have a chabad rabbi in your shul.

[Isa]

They have to figure out a way to expel Chabad altogether. Kicking out that Center would be the first step but they have to keep Chabad out.

How about a Rebbe mosaic on the floor of the entrance, in order to come in ,one has to walk on the Rebbe.

[Jay]

The Mad Adventures of Rabbi Jacob

[harold]

The article is not clear as to what the people were getting or thought they were getting for $325. What were these "tickets" to? Were they for the shul dinner or for high holiday seats? If they were for high holiday seats, $325 seems excessive for only one seat. I know that in my shul high holiday seat tickets were $100. For $250 you become an associate member which includes one ticket. $500 buys you full membership with two high holiday tickets. The local Chabad here in the 5 towns were charging $100 for high holiday seating tickets. If they were for the shul dinner, then that is a different story. Although excessive it is within reason and more so if it includes shul membership.

[Dr. Dave]

הִנֵּה מַה טוֹב וּמַה נָּעִים שֶׁבֶת אָחִים גַּם יַחַד

[itchiemayer]

I must be missing something, but how did Jacobson have the right to offer shul memberships, when his is a seperate entity from the Shul. As this was not addressed, I will assume that he had permission to do so. Otherwise, it would be cut and dry that these people are not members. That is the most fundamental question which should be addressed. If they are members, they can vote. I am generally suspicious of motives of the Lubavitchers in these situations, but at this point I am giving them the benefit of the doubt.

[Shmarya]

The article is not clear as to what the people were getting or thought they were getting for $325. What were these "tickets" to?

To a series of lectures, classes and events sponsored by the Meaningful Life Center – AKA, Chabad. They were NOT tickets to High Holiday services or the like.

[Shmarya]

I must be missing something, but how did Jacobson have the right to offer shul memberships, when his is a seperate entity from the Shul

The article says the shul agreed to bring in new blood by admitting Chabad members brought in by Jacobson.

What Jacobson did is register people as members who had no idea they were becoming members. Later, he apparently told them Chabad had made them members of the shul and then encouraged them to vote for Chabad's slate.

Yes, the article could be clearer here. But, because the Jewish Week lacks investigative editors and investigative reporters, complex stories like this suffer as a result.

[For those wondering, Hella Winston, who has done award-winning investigative coverage of haredi sex abuse for the JW, is a freelancer with a strong journalism background and a PHD. She isn't a JW employee. In other words, the reporter part of the above equation exists in her case, something that is not true for the rest of the JW staff. Also, Hella's work for the JW started under Larry Cohler-Esses, an investigative journalist and editor who now works for the Forward.]

[Bilaams Ass]

Smarya There is a VIP piece of info missing from this story.

I know one of the key board members and the synagogue has $1,000,0000+ in the bank from deceased members wills and donations, this can be easily verified.

[Yerachmiel Lopin]

"I invited a Chabadnik in and all I got was a lousy yechi pin"

[Yosef ben Matitya]

I am generally suspicious of motives of the Lubavitchers in these situations, but at this point I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. - said itchiemayer

u should remain suspicious, i.m.
there is no reason to grant them benefit of any doubt, not now not ever.
As it sez, מְעֻוָּת, לֹא-יוּכַל לִתְקֹן; וְחֶסְרוֹן, לֹא-יוּכַל לְהִמָּנוֹת.
further to paraphrase the novi yirmiyahu:
הֲיַהֲפֹךְ כּוּשִׁי עוֹרוֹ, וְנָמֵר חֲבַרְבֻּרֹתָיו; גם-הם יוכלו לְהֵיטִיב, לִמֻּדֵי הרע? י
Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may 'they' also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

[Bal]

MLC is not a Chabad organization. RSJ happens to be Chabad, and many of his idea are based on Chabad thought, but he is not a Shliach in any way.

[Dr. Moe]

Jacobson put this shul on the map and his orgnization has nothing to do with chabad, yes Simon Jacobson happens to be a chabad guy but his orgnization is NOT chabad.

[Dr. Moe]

Shmarya,

Your headline is extremely miss leading and twisted, no where in the artical does it mention chabad, the best you can do is to appologize to the shul and Simon Jacobson.

[harold]

So let me understand this. The shul's Board Chairman Matthew Pace, asked Rabbi Jacobson if he would encourage some of his participants to become shul members. Yet at the same time the old members appear only interested in members that will "vote their way". I am also not clear if any of the people that paid the $325 would not have bought the tickets if they knew if it also included membership in the shul. So what exactly is the problem here? It appears that the old membership wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want new members to revitalize their shul but only want "their type of people".

[harold]

To continue my analysis, if these new members are really not members at all then in a year from now when membership comes due, if they do not pay then control returns to the old members, Rabbi Jacobson looks like a fool and leaves with his tail between his legs and all is as it once was.

[Bilaams Ass]

Is R. Jacobson a Meshichist?

[Izzy]

I don't understand, the shul took the new members membership fees, but then wants to deny them voting rights? If they didn't want all these new members, they should not have taken them. Taking their money, but then denying them the priveleges of membership (beased on newly created voting rules, which are probably not in the by-laws, or legally enforceable, does not seem right.

[Sarah K]

This is not the first time Chabad has done this in shul's that have only a few elderly members but have valuable real estate, many Torahs and huge bank accounts and stock portfolios. It's like a hostile takeover. Someone has got to come up with a poison pill for these situations.

[CHAIM]

JACOBSON DOES NOT HAVE A FOLLOWING ANYWAY....JUST A COUPLE OLDER SINGLE GALS EYING HIM AND HIM FLIRTING ...............HIS GIG IS OVER

[Stop the TakeOvers]

I was involved in writing by-laws for a congregation. I worried about things like hostile takeovers and dispersal of assets if/when the congregation closed up.

I got a lot of resistance. We were then growing and had no such problems. (we also had no assets anyone would want to steal).

In the end I could not get approval of a rule requiring approval of all applications for membership. I argued that it would be pro-forma until such time as ballot stuffing and takeover was suspected.

In general organizations don't pay enough attention to these things when they are founded. Then as they decline, an inbred and not sufficiently active board often fails to pay attention.

Takeover artists have a nose for such situations and worm their way in. Obviously, chabad is in a league of its own. BTW they started on these tactics when they took over the buildings of the various non-chabad declining congregations in Crown
Heights during the sixties and seventies.

I have heard, but cannot confirm, that happened with the very nice real estate of the Yeshivah and Mesivta of Crown Heights.

[ZIY]

WOW! It took over a year for the 6th Street Synagogue to finally catch on. We can now read the New York Times' article from last year in a different light:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/nyregion/29synagogue.html?_r=1

& it is not just the shul members it is trying to take over. The "Meaningful Life Center" is also guilty of kicking out the "New Yiddish Rep" theater, & the weekly "Cholent" gathering.

Call it "MEANingful Life Center" -- as in MEAN & NASTY.

As they say: "A gruzhine blaybt a gruzhine"...

[Daviid]

Interesting: The whole story can also be seen in the exact opposite light. A Synagogue is waning, down to 25 Shabbat attendees (I've been there more than once so I see what's going on). In a few years it will most likely be down to half or less of that. A board that reflects (and is reflected by) the weakness in the Synagogue. One person who is probably in control, like Jack Lebewohl, and no growth to show. Then some in the Synagogue invite in new members to help revitalize the space. This threatens Jack and some of the old guard. So they create this conspiracy theory of a "takeover" in order to entrench themselves and maintain control of the real estate (Jack after all is a real estate attorney). And the Synagogue? Who cares about it -- they don't seem to care of it grows or not, as long as they stay in power!
Now, tell me if this scenario is at all possible (rhetorical question)?! The same story at 23rd St. and at Charles St. -- one person not allowing any growth.
It's one thing if the one in control is bringing in hundreds of people; but to allow it to dwindle to a bare minyan, and then complain when others are trying to revitalize it -- is pure chutzpah and extreme selfishness.
Comrades: Comment on that.

[harold]

guilty of kicking out the ... the weekly "Cholent" gathering

Now that is going too far.

[yankele]

Shmarya,

While I am sure that it sounds better to make this into a Chabad issue, this has very little to do with Chabad, SEMEN Jacobson and ALL to do with the Sixth Street Synagogue.

First a bit about the shul: The Sixth Street Community Synagogue is an amazing structure, on prime New York City real estate (Sixth Street and St. Marks) that is worth millions of dollars. It used to be a church and in 1904 the church lost its ENTIRE congregation when the party ship the community was on sank (you can look it up). The shul was able to buy it for a song in the early 1940s (I used to work with a woman who was an original member, was a synagogue officer for many years, and may still be if she is alive). The shul also has a huge endowment. I remember that during the 1990s, it seemed like the shul would run a weekly obit for another one of its members, a dr., lawyer, business man. Abe Lebawohl was a member. Like many synagogues, the older members do not want the synagogue to die, yet at the same time, they do not want to give up control, especially in New York where shuls have been stolen by "new members," the children of rabbis, and original shul officers. Since it is in the Village, many are old folks are bohemians, and so they liked the idea of having members of the ARTs community. Frank London, I believe, is a member.
In 1994, it hired a young Lubavitcher to be rabbi to help revive the shul that began to dwindle in size in the 1970s, as older people moved out of the East Village or died. He was the rabbi there for a very long time, was successful in attracting members, but was then dumped in an incident that is identical to what is happening now (and will happen in five years, should Rabbi Gregg Wall be successful). They claimed he was trying to take over the shul, he denied it. When he was hired, he tried many Chabad practices to bring in new members. His Hi-Tech Talmud torah is still very popular, and it attracted many kids. He also had support from the Rabbi Emeritus, who died, I believe, four-or-five years after the Chabad rabbi took over.
The Sixth Street Community Synagogue hosted Chulent for a while, until SEMEN Jacobson was offered the basement. Then SEMEN kicked out the CHulenters. If I am not mistaken, SEMEN was offered the basement BEFORE they began their rabbi search. (BTW: Rabbi Gregg Wall is a Friend of Lubavitch, returned to the Orthodoxy of his youth as a result of Chabad and is friendly with SEMEN.)
Had SEMEN wanted to take over, he could have easily floated his name for the rabbi position.
If Chabad was trying to steal the property, why did they invite another Chabad rabbi onto their premises????

Besides, Shamrya, you know as well as I do that SEMEN is not a Chabadnick. He is/was/ and always will be a follower of SEMEN Jacobson.

The only reason I think Rabbi Gregg Wall has a chance at staying with the shul is if his concert series is successful. If successful, the rabbi will able to bring in enough money to do his own thing without the board members becoming paranoid that he is trying to steal the shul underneath them.

BTW: if you have any questions, feel free to call my good friend Larry Cohler, who you hold in such esteem. He will vouch for my journalistic integrity, and if he isn’t home, tell his wife I said HI!

[yankele]

Just want to be clear (actually, you have to be pretty blind if you don't see it) I am no fan of SEMEN. Nor am I saying that Chabad doesn't do this often, but this is a matter of a synagogue where the board, does not want to cede control.

++++The new members had actually spearheaded the vote to begin with, demanding that the synagogue hold a fair board election, particularly since a board had not been properly elected in 10 years. ++++++

[Josh]

I've been to Sixth Street Synagogue on many occasions starting close to 15 years ago, the Shul is made up of a couple dozen old bitter Jews in their mid 70's+, they have chased out close to 10 rabbis since i first attended.

Anybody that comes in with a vision or attempts to bring some young blood to the Shul is forced out. A Shabbos Mincha fight between members is a regular occurrence at Sixth Street.

Anybody who has every been there knows this to be true. Jacobson should just let the Shul die - they don't deserve better.

[esty]

Bilaams Ass,

I wonder the same.
Anybody, is R Jacobson a meshichist??

[Shmarya]

His brother is.

[esty]

You mean Yossi?

[Shmarya]

Yes.

[esty]

Emailed you

[Shmarya]

Didn't get it.

[esty]

Weird will try again now

[esty]

Resent it, if it doesnt arrive can you email me please so I can reply to yours.

[Shmarya]

Still didn't get it. Please use the email link in the content tab above right.

[esty]

I am. But just replied to yours

[Sharon Udasin]

Hi, I am the author of the original article. First off -- I am disturbed by the fact that Failed Messiah has called this post "Chabad Move To Take Over NYC Shul Blocked – For Now." Whatever your opinion is on Jacobson's MLC, it is NOT affiliated with the Chabad movement, and that's a fact. And you started the post off with the quote from Landis saying that Jacobson was doing something "fraudulent" without then presenting Jacobson and Pace's side of the story.

As the author of the Jewish Week story, and having spent a TON of time researching this whole thing, I cannot honestly say who is telling the truth and who isn't. It will require MUCH more research on my part if I want to get to the bottom of this. Weeks perhaps, maybe even months, because it's such a complicated issue. At this point, I was just looking to present the conflict as it stands, and in time we will figure out who is right and who is wrong.

Sharon Udasin
http://www.sharonudasin.com
http://www.thejewishweek.com

[levi]

nininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininininini

[A E ANDERSON]

The MLC seems more Kaballah Centre than Habad House, from the looks of its website. This hardly seems like a typical Habad shul takeover.

Still, I would look to Jacobson's status as an official שליח, (shliach, literally "apostle") in deconstructing the MLC. If Jacobson is issued an admission ticket to the annual Shluchim Convention, that means he is recognised as a representative of the movement by what pass as the official organs of Lubavitch. Ring up Avremel, Yudel and Kotlarsky and ask them point blank! How hard could that be?!

Still, you can't allow the publisher of the frickin' Algemeiner Journal get away disassociating himself from Habad. Yet, MLC doesn't pass the Habad sniff test: they do trendy, novel, stuff -- certainly to a greater degree that guys like Boteach, who have been officially disowned as representative shluchim.

I'd venture to say that Jacobson is probably trying to forge an new approach, to take the Habad mission in an experimental direction by fusing the celebrity gained from his book with what he regards as redeemable and useful elements from popular culture and self-help. I think he's up to something very interesting.

But unlike others (Zalman Schachter, Carlebach) who have taken paths other than the tried and true, Jacobson still has one foot firmly planted in traditional Habad terra firma. There's no denying he a Lubavitcher.

I think it's wonderful that people like Jacobson are trying to affirm by practice that Habad did not exist for 7 generation in vain, only to disintegrate into a circus of messianic clowns and bizzarros. Rebbe Schneerson tried to voice the idea that Judaism is universal, and I think Jacobson may well have an interesting experiment going.

[Shimshon]

Having participated in some of his programs and getting to know him,
I would describe Simon Jacobson as "post-Chabad."

[ZIY]

This is a wide-spread phenomenon. There are various full-fledged Lubavitchers who run organizations, even learning institutes etc., without using the official name of Lubavitch.

Several examples, besides Simon Jacobson:

Dov Pinson of the Iyyun Institute, http://iyyun.com/

Leibl Wolf of SpiritGrow, http://www.laiblwolf.com/

Yitchak Ginsburgh of Gal Einai, http://www.inner.org/

Shlomo Shwartz (aka "Shwortzi") of the Chai Center, http://chaicenter.org/

The crew of Ascent, http://ascentofsafed.com/cgi-bin/ascent.cgi

Possibly even Mayanot Institute, http://www.mayanot.edu/

These -- & others like them -- are programs & institutes run by card-carrying Chabadniks (even Shluchim convention attendees), who make it an obvious point not to mention Chabad at all on their official publicity material. It is a ploy to lure in those who may be turned of by a program that looks "too frum" or "too Lubavitch." They try to use all the "sophisticated" New Age gobbledeegook verbiage to attract these very souls.

It has a twofold benefit: These Rabbis who present themselves as "outside" the Lubavitch system can then go and get involved in activities that may not be conducive to Official Lubavitch standards; conversely, when these Rabbis do these border-line activities, Official Lubavitch can always distance themselves from it and say, "Hey, they are not really Lubavitch, since they do not carry the name of Chabad-Lubavitch."

Call it the "Undercover Chabad Organizations." In a way they are more pernicious than normative Lubavitch institutions (e.g. Chabad Houses), for until you become immersed in their programs they will not divulge their heavy Rebbe leanings.

If you read the New York Times article of last year about the Meaningful Life Center, you will see the ingenious phrasing of the reporter used [caps-emphasis mine]:

"Starting this evening with Rosh Hashana services, Rabbi Simon Jacobson, A LUBAVITCHER RABBI from Crown Heights and founder of the Meaningful Life Center — a project known for blending religious teaching with tai chi, introductory kabbalah and Hasidic rap — will become a kind of Jewish mystic-in-residence at the traditional, Orthodox Community Synagogue.

"INSPIRED by the movement known as Chabad, a Hasidic sect with a missionary tradition around the world, Rabbi Jacobson said he would offer his programs — which until now he has operated on an itinerant basis around the city — at the Sixth Street synagogue in hopes of creating “a spiritual Starbucks.”

"The plan is to attract people, regardless of their faith, from all over the city, he said. But the goal is to restore Jewish identity to those estranged from Judaism and, if possible, to add them to the membership rolls of Community Synagogue.

"LIKE MANY LUBAVITCHERS, Rabbi Jacobson embodies a paradoxical mix of strictly conservative theology and a freewheeling, nonjudgmental hipster style. He is partial to drum circles. He is friendly with the Hasidic reggae-rap-klezmer artist known as Matisyahu."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/nyregion/29synagogue.html?_r=1

Also remember that Simon Jacobson's main office to this day is RIGHT UPSTAIRS FROM 770 (more accurately, 784-788 Eastern Parkway), down the hall from Yudel Krinsky's office and where they print the Rebbe's weekly sichos!!!!!

[Shmarya]

Hi, I am the author of the original article. First off -- I am disturbed by the fact that Failed Messiah has called this post "Chabad Move To Take Over NYC Shul Blocked – For Now." Whatever your opinion is on Jacobson's MLC, it is NOT affiliated with the Chabad movement, and that's a fact.

No, Sharon, that is not a fact.

Jacobson's groups is not listed as an official Chabad organization. That is true.

But Jacobson is a Chabadnik who, like his brother Yossi, makes a large chunk of his living servicing official Chabad organizations as a speaker and as a supplier of materials official Chabad uses.

Jacobson also wrote a (misleading) book on the life of the Rebbe that was pushed by Chabad. It is thought that Chabad purchased many of the books reported sold, using them as fundraising gifts and the like, to bump up Jacobson's sales.

His family publishes the Algeminer Journal, which is a Chabad-controlled newspaper.

Jacobson also headed several publication committees for the official Chabad movement responsible for printing the Rebbe's edited talks.

Past all this, you wrote this article as if this is the only example of similar behavior from Chabad-linked rabbis and groups, but this is false. Chabad has done similar things all over the NYC metropolitan area. Some of those takeover attempts have been reported in the Jewish media – even in the Jewish Week.

When you strip the story of these other takeover attempts – or the Chabad takeover attempts in Europe and other locations – you skew the story, and that is exactly what you did.

And you started the post off with the quote from Landis saying that Jacobson was doing something "fraudulent" without then presenting Jacobson and Pace's side of the story.

That's called a subhead, Sharon. As you should know, using subheads and pull quotes are normal industry-wide practices used to illustrate the most important or engaging part of the story.

What I did is standard practice.

You seem to assume I know nothing about that synagogue or Jacobson. But, Sharon, I do. I've spoken to or had contact with members and former members, including one 2 hour interview done a few hours before I posted your story, and I know Jacobson.

I also know Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky, who now heads Chabad, and dozens of other leading shluchim, and I used to work for Chabad.

I also had the advantage of heading a large non-Chabad Jewish organization that had frequent contact with Chabad, so I got to see both sides of Chabad's behavior.

Lastly, I notice your story doesn't quote any outside experts, people who study Chabad (Sam Heilman or Menachem Friedman, for example). So your story also lacks balance in that regard.

Be careful, Sharon, about who you lecture.

[Shmarya]

ZIY –

Mayanot is a Chabad organization. Ascent now is but was not officially so for the first 10 or so years it existed.

When Rabbi Aronow needed to rapidly increase the number of official Chabad organizations in Israel due to a fight he was having with Rabbi Wolfe, who ran Chabad in Israel at that time, Aronow made Ascent an official Chabad organization. Ascent only found out when one of the guys noticed they were included on the new Chabad list put out that year – Aronow never told them.

Needless to say, no changes were made in Ascent's operation before or after its inclusion on the official Chabad list.

Label Wolf's organization and the others you mention are good examples of individuals who set themselves up as experts on kabbalah, etc., and who are then used by primarily Chabad Houses worldwide as speakers.

They serve as support personnel for these Chabad Houses, safe speakers who talk as if they are not Chabad when, in fact, they are.

The main reason most of these guys went independent is because otherwise they would have to share a chunk of their profits with whatever shaliach they worked for.

[Shmarya]

ZIY –

I should add that Ginsburgh is a case onto himself, a guy who was far more popular than the official shluchim and who was pushed out of official Chabad as a result.

Since that time he has grown much more extreme in his views. But until the Rebbe could no longer communicate, Ginsburgh got his directions direct from 770.

[Shmarya]

ZIY –

And Schwartzie was fired by Cunin. But Cunin has a history of firing or moving to remote locations shluchim who did good jobs, and putting his own kids in their places.

[Jeremy]

Shmarya, since you seem so "fair minded" and cite how you are using "standard practice" in this post, I was wondering if you also used "standard practice" of speaking to all sides about this story before posting this piece? Or did you only have time for a 2 hour interview with one party and not the other?

[Shmarya]

Shmarya, since you seem so "fair minded" and cite how you are using "standard practice" in this post, I was wondering if you also used "standard practice" of speaking to all sides about this story before posting this piece? Or did you only have time for a 2 hour interview with one party and not the other?

Please.

I didn't – yet – write my own article. I'm still working on it.

All I did is post the Jewish Week piece and point out that Chabad has done this many times before in NYC and worldwide.

I could have spoken about Jacobson's lies surrounding his book on the Rebbe, but I didn't. I spoke with Jacobson then, and I'm still waiting almost 15 years later for the documents he promised me, documents he said supported his lies.

I could have posted a Chabad shaliach's response to Jacobson's games then: "What do you expect? He's a journalist. All journalists are liars." I did not, just as I did not post my response to that shaliach: "That may be true in the haredi world, but it is not true elsewhere."

Do I really need to go on?

The Jewish Week story is fine as far as it goes. Sharon's response, posted above, is not, for the reasons I mention above.

[Yochanan Lavie]

I know Gregg Wall. He is a good, sincere, man. I wish him success in his new position.

[Jeremy]

What lies are you referring to surrounding Jacobson's book? (I assume you mean Toward A Meaningful Life). I have heard only good things about that book.

[A little more info:]

Here is a letter from a longstanding Synagogue member trustee, which was sent out to all the Synagogue members to clarify the story. It's surprising that no mention has been made about this letter -- which debunks the whole "takeover" theory.

January 24, 2010

Dear Chairman, Board of Trustees and Synagogue members,
I resign as of today from serving as a Trustee on the Synagogue Board of Trustees. This past Shabbat an announcement was made in Shul regarding a sudden annual membership meeting in less than two weeks to elect new officers, and accusations were made about a so-called “takeover” attempt. As a Trustee of our Synagogue, it is my imperative duty to publicly explain the reasons for my resignation, as well as to inform you of the nature of this surprise meeting, including some important facts that were omitted in the Shabbat announcement, and are unknown to most members.

Due to the waning attendance and diminishing membership of our beloved Synagogue over the past years, several important steps were initiated by the Synagogue Board last year to ensure the Synagogue’s future viability and enable its growth:

- - After over 10 years of no Synagogue membership meetings and elections as required by law, an annual membership meeting and election should finally be held in February 2010. Most of the existing board members were never duly elected, and it is high time to establish a legitimate board, which will lead our Shul into a phase of rejuvenation and growth.

- - Last summer our Shul launched a successful membership drive to help revitalize the Synagogue, and we more than doubled our membership, primarily due to the Board’s efforts to encourage attendees to Meaningful Life Center programs, among others, to join our Shul. The objective of this drive (as stated on the Synagogue website) was that new members would have the “opportunity to participate in the growth and future direction of the Community Synagogue” and as any member, they can (as the bylaws state) be elected as new board members in the annual election – which would allow for the Synagogue to begin a new phase of forward progress and growth.

It saddens me to share with you, that despite all the diligent efforts and many long hours invested by our Board Chairman, Matthew Pace and other Trustees, including myself, to make the Shul grow – our existing Board has become splintered and ineffective.

By December 2009 we were supposed to have an election committee installed, a slate of nominees for new officers, and all the proper notices posted for the upcoming February election. But then, in a sudden move in December, just as we were beginning to see hope for the future, some who have taken control of the board, abruptly postponed the elections and attempted to stop us from proceeding with the requirements of our own by-laws, refusing to hold a meeting, to accept new members and to have an election.

Only after some members from the Synagogue petitioned the board (on December 28) demanding the annual membership meeting and election, and only after the board ignored this petition prompting the members (as is required by law) to notice a meeting for March 1 (this notice was received by all members), did the board suddenly call for an impromptu meeting for February 7.

Our by-laws specifically state that at least 20 day notice is required before the meeting in order to allow time to nominate candidates and make any suggested constitution amendments. Calling a quick meeting and election (only after the members demand) without following appropriate procedures, coupled with repeated attempts to disenfranchise members, raises some serious questions as to the intentions of this move. It also opens us up to liability for our actions.

In order to drive the point home, I reiterate: The entire purpose of recruiting new members and to hold the required election is to REVITALIZE OUR SHUL, which is in desperate need of new blood. Our Shul attendance speaks for itself: We are all sadly aware of our poor attendance during the week and on Shabbat. On an average Shabbat barely 20-30 people show up; on a good week, 40 people. Although a great young crowd (mostly students) visits us regularly (twice a month on Friday nights), we have nothing to offer that will attract them to stay with us and join us as members. In my opinion, the reason is very obvious: We were in need of a new young crowd, mature and willing to work and be involved in our Shul affairs. This precisely was the reason we looked for a partnership with MLC, which has literally brought thousands of new Jews through our doors, and why the Board approved to launch a membership drive during summer in order to infuse new energy to a place that is diminishing in membership and in attendance and, as hard as it is to say, gradually dying.

It is therefore critically imperative – for the sake of our Shul and its survival – that we hold an open and transparent election that welcomes all our members, both old and new, and serves as a step toward revitalization and growth, not retreating to the past.

Although I have doubts about the basis and the legitimacy of the impromptu February 7 meeting, and question whether we can meet the logistics needed according to our bylaws, since the meeting has been announced, let us make an effort to use this opportunity to elect a healthy and forward thinking board.

I adamantly disagree with any hostile actions toward any members of our Synagogue (new or old), and see no basis for them as I stated in many of our meetings. Any suggestion of a “takeover” is absurd, with absolutely no basis. The membership drive was initiated by the Synagogue, and the members and their membership dues were all accepted by us. Any questions about the new members have been thoroughly addressed in my letter of 9/26/09. I personally met many of these members, and can vouch that they are beautiful people dedicated to help our Shul grow. I know that many of my fellow members have not met these people and therefore may has some concerns, which is why I continue to encourage all of you to acquaint yourself with these members.

I cannot tell you how much I feel for the welfare and future of the Shul. Therefore, I call upon our board and all our Synagogue members to ensure that the upcoming membership meeting and election, be held in a transparent and democratic way that lives up to the highest ethical and Jewish standards. All members should be given proper notice and welcomed to the meeting and the election without any conditions.

I call on all of us to participate in every way possible. Let us work together, old and new members. Together, let us discuss the great possibilities to build our beloved Shul in ways that bring pride and not shame to us all as part of Am Israel. Let us bring light and not darkness to this beautiful place.

If you have any questions or want more clarification on any of the above issues, please don’t hesitate to contact me at rmehlman28@yahoo.com

Sincerely,

Raquel Mehlman

[Lubobs are for the most part,kool-aided]

Shmarya,
Are you sure that Yosef Yitzchok Jacobson is a Meshichist?
Does not come across that way at all.
The Algemeiner is not a Chabad controlled newspaper, it is controlled by the Jacobsons who are Luobos, and obviously mostly spout the party line,but it is not a Chabad publication per se.
Lastly,I think Simon Jacobson wants to control his institution and does not want to answer to anyone but himself.I think in a way Simon is post Chabad.
Not that I am in in any way,shape or form a fan of Lubob,I"m so not but wanted to give some perspective.See,Lubob inc is crumbling in a way with no binding central power since the Rebbes passing,so it's a bit of a free for all and charismatic Lubob are starting to want to run their own thing.Note that both Jacobson brothers Simon and Yossi are gifted and good speakers,especially Yossi, but both apparently don't feel like being in the employ of Lubob.inc

[ZIY]

I wonder how many of the MLC members actually live in the neighborhood (East Village) and attend the regular synagogue services upstairs? Rabbi Wall's stipulation that members be defined by those who attend the SYNAGOGUE services upstairs (NOT MLC services or events downstairs) at least once a month is the minimum standard -- though one can never let it past Simon & his sidekick Velvel Farkas to "bus in" their groupees to fulfill this requirement.

Back in the day when Lubavitcher Rabbi Naftali (Tuli) Rotenstreich was Rabbi, he would let Rabbi Asi Spigel run some events downstairs (e.g. seders) -- but it was never understood that the crowd that Asi brought in were members of the synagogue. (Same thing when Asi ran Shabat meals at the now-collapsed First Roumanian Synagogue on Rivington.) It is the synagogue's near-sightedness that they agreed to "give over the keys" so to speak to Simon, rather then viewing him as a client renting their space like any other synagogue that rents out their hall for specific outside events.

What is amazing is that Simon & co. still do not attend synagogue services there, nor even live in Manhattan. So in what way are they active members of the original synagogue community, besides paying membership dues?

Also, one should speak to former Rabbi Charlie Bukholtz to get the real picture how this fiasco came to be.

I would recommend to Simon & co. that they act like any other institute and find their own space to rent/buy -- and not intrude into already existing institutions and create any more discord.

Only shalom.

[paul]

Hey,I see you deleted my post.
Why?
You silly lit'l dictator with brains in the ass

[Shmarya]

Hey,I see you deleted my post.
Why?
You silly lit'l dictator with brains in the ass

WTF are you talking about?

[chabadnik attorney]

I don't know anything about MLC but take it from a Lubavitcher, if its run by a Lubavitcher then its ultimately Lubavitch. This really isn't a big chidush to anyone, is it ?

[A Concerned Congregant]

As a longtime congregant of the Community Synagogue Center, I am responding to Raquel Mehlman’s letter. I’ve spoken with board members who wanted me to tell the shul’s story.

Raquel complains that the shul has not held an election for over 10 years. But as she is a long time congregant, shul board member, and lawyer, I wonder why she failed to bring up this oversight. In reality, she knows that prior to signing a lease with the Meaningful Life Center (MLC), there was no election because it would really have been little more than a formality. The election would have been an excuse to have a breakfast and whoever wanted to be on the board would be put on the board (as has been the case in the past).

Only after MLC’s lease came under scrutiny were elections sought. Members of the congregation and a near unanimous board expressed dissatisfaction with MLC. MLC had failed to pay rent for the second half of 2009 and paid less than $2,000 in rent for the first half of 2009 (MLC is required to pay the shul 30% of its revenue; MLC’s annual membership is $2,400/year). More importantly, MLC was neither bolstering the congregation nor providing the programming that it promised.

Elections were called to ensure a CONTINUATION OF MLC’S LEASE or a TAKEOVER OF THE SHUL BY MLC. Prior to the threat to MLC’s lease, no one (not even Raquel) whispered anything about elections. If she thought elections were so important, it was her duty as a congregant and board member to call for an election.

The election was called to allow MLC to take over the shul. Raquel ran on a slate with only 2 other fellow congregants and 21 total strangers (one of whom is MLC’s executive director and one of the people who nominated the MLC slate was Rabbi Jacobson’s mother). The people Raquel ran with did not even have the decency to introduce themselves to the congregants whom they wished to rule. Raquel’s husband is the shul’s gabbai; has he ever called any of them up for an aliyah?

Fortunately, the shul slate won the election. Out of a total of 85 valid votes (in accordance with NYS law), Raquel and MLC’s slate only received 2 total votes. Out of 255 total votes cast, Raquel and MLC only received 100 votes (this includes the votes of over 30 people who sent in checks to the shul within a week of the election). On a separate note, notice was not a problem for the MLC members; almost all of their supporters voted.

Raquel has claimed she was embarrassed at what occurred during the leadup to the election. She should be embarrassed. Strangers, invited by and allied with Raquel showed up to the shul – almost all for the 1st time -- to vote and take control of the shul. They all came for one reason: to ensure MLC’s continued use of the building. There was no other reason for them to come. They have no connection to the shul and their only connection to the building is to MLC (a tenant). These people were even encouraged by Jacobson himself, who had the audacity and nerve to not only show up at his landlord’s election but to request to speak.

The MLC supporters were positively hostile to long time attendees of the shul. In fact, they showed zero respect or even consideration for the shul and its regular attendees (read the Jewish Week article for examples of their bad behavior). Many of the strangers who sought to vote did not even care enough to give their own money to the shul. Instead a few wealthy fat cats paid the “membership” on their behalf.

Should Raquel be embarrassed? You bet she should. She wants to give the keys to the shul that has given her so much and has served as a 2nd home to her and her family to a stranger.

Even worse is her continued subterfuge that this is about who can vote at the shul’s elections. That is not the issue at all. Raquel is actually seeking to have the shul taken over by MLC for MLC purposes without any regard for the shul’s interests, purpose, or members.

Raquel professes concern for the shul’s future, but if her plan is implemented there will be no shul. There will be only MLC and a shul controlled by MLC members who care nothing for the shul and its future (they didn’t even bother to attend the 3 shabbat services from the date the election was announced to the election itself). Their only interest is MLC.

The MLC may be a wonderful organization, but it serves a different purpose than the shul. Raquel talks about the shul’s attendance. Attendance has increased since Rabbi Wall has assumed the pulpit. For all the people that attend MLC events (on average 40 to 50 people attend MLC events), most do not live in the shul’s neighborhood and have never attended shul services or events despite the shul’s open door policy (note: just because people attend the events of a tenant (MLC), does not give them a right to control the landlord --- would we be having this conversation if the tenant was not MLC but Alcoholics Anonymous).

Raquel resigned from the shul’s board, and well she should. As a member of the shul’s board, she owes a duty of loyalty to the shul’s congregants and to further the shul’s purpose. This duty of loyalty is incompatible with supporting a take over of the shul by the MLC.

Let Raquel state her goals explicitly: I think the time has come to make the shul extinct so that the MLC can have the building for the mere cost of $30,000.00 (the amount of money sent in by the MLC members to the shul). As Raquel and the MLC supporters waived their ballots and proxies, I thought back to Joseph Welch when he declared to Joseph McCarthy “You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

[A Little More Info2]

As someone who actually regularly attends the Community Synagogue Center (CSC), I feel I must respond to the disingenuous and egregious controversy that surrounds the shul that I love.

• Voters: The standard applied by the shul to the voters in last week’s election is rooted in NY State Law (see NY RCL § 195). It was not an ad hoc standard applied by the shul or Rabbi Wall. It was applied equally to CSC congregants and Meaningful Life Center (MLC) members.

• Shul Attendance: The MLC has not contributed to an increase in the shul’s attendance (the increase in shul attendance is due to the hard work and leadership of Rabbi Wall). Despite Raquel Mehlman’s claims, not only has every MLC member failed to become a regular CSC attendee, almost all of the MLC members have never attended a CSC service. Why have the MLC members never attended a CSC service during the 2 year tenancy of MLC? Most of the MLC members do not live within the vicinity of the shul, and some of them even hail from as far away as California and Canada. For most of the MLC members, the first time they came to a CSC event was for the election. Additionally, attendance at MLC’s events (a CSC tenant) is not the same as attending CSC services or events. MLC and CSC are 2 separate entities, although the MLC members wish they would merge (see the next bullet point).

• MLC Members’ Motive: MLC members sent in money to the shul. Perhaps, it was to express gratitude for providing a home for their organization? Unfortunately, it was to take over the shul, as is evidenced by the checks sent in by 30 people in the week prior to the election. Sylvia Jacobson, Simon Jacobson’s mother, was one of the people who nominated a board that contained only 3 shul regulars and 21 people who have rarely (if ever) attended CSC services; one of the proposed board members is the executive director of the MLC. As Alan Dorfman openly notes in a letter in the current issue of the Jewish Week (http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c53_a17924/Editorial__Opinion/Letter.html), he wants to give control of the shul to Rabbi Jacobson.

• Attempts to Undermine the Election: The 30 people who sent in checks did so after the election was noticed. Legally anyone who joins after the election is noticed is ineligible to vote. Furthermore, according to MLC’s analysis you could walk into St. Patrick’s cathedral after an election is noticed. Find out how many people you need to win an election, get that number of people to join by paying membership and take over. The membership dues for 1 year will be far less than the value of the building. Should a group of less than a hundred people get to take over a shul they do not care about by paying $325 for a maximum total of $32,500 over the period of a year?

• The MLC Lease: The MLC is a tenant of the shul. Unfortunately, the MLC has not honored its lease. Rabbi Jacobson has not paid the shul rent since June 2009. He has paid the shul less than $2,000 in rent for the first half of 2009 (he is required to pay the shul 30% of MLC’s revenue; MLC’s annual membership is $2,400/year and Raquel talks about how successful MLC is). Additionally, the MLC has not accounted for its income as is required by the lease.

In reality, this controversy is not about a vote for the shul’s board. It is about the attempt by a group of outsiders attempting to get control of the shul’s board in order to guarantee the continued tenancy of MLC (presumably for free as has been the case during most of its tenancy). What would the MLC members have done if they won the election? Except for 3 people from their proposed board slate, none of them attend CSC services nor have they shown a desire to attend. What did they want to change? If the MLC members would have won the election, the MLC would have become the landlord. One must ask why did Rabbi Jacobson attend his landlord’s annual election and ask to speak, if he views himself only as a tenant?

Community Synagogue has always been an open and welcome congregation. The shul prides itself on its open door policy. Anyone who wishes to attend the shul’s services is more than welcome to join us for prayer. Jew, gentile, observant, non-observant --- anyone and everyone is welcome to attend services.

[Another concerned congregant]

As another concerned long-time congregant who loves my shul, I would also like to share some thoughts, that I know others in the shul share as well. For fear of retribution (look what they did to Raquel Mehlman just for speaking her mind) I prefer not to use my name (though the previous posts chose to do the same, for some reason).
* We are down to 25 people coming on an average Shabbos. In a short while that number will dwindle as well. Does anyone care?
* Insiders call our shul "Jack's shul." I'm not sure when and how Jack assumed control (not uncommon in dying shuls), but we do know that over the last five years the shul has only gotten weaker in attendance.
* It would be a good idea to speak with the previous Rabbis and find out the circumstances of their coming and going and what they experienced while they were in the shul.
* Let's stop kidding ourselves. Jack is the one that runs the shul and makes all the major decisions. As soon as he saw that the new programming (brought in by the MLC) was attracting numbers, he felt threatened that in a bit of time he will lose control. Simple as that. Let's stop creating conspiracy theories and developing all types of new membership conditions, besmirching the name of our shul. Let's at least have the decency to call a spade a spade, and acknowledge that Jack is in control and doesn't want anything that will challenge that monopoly.
Nothing new. It happens in shuls all the time.
* For years the community room downstairs was not being used, except for a few activities which never had the hope of making our shul a thriving environment. Suddenly, due to the efforts of a few good people who wanted to revitalize the shul, new programming began drawing numbers of vibrant Jews, suddenly now this began to be a problem... Give me a break. It's so obvious that Jack and co. simply do not want anything growthful that may affect his control. Even a friend of mine who has no connection to the shul told me that this smacks of glaring entrenchment.
* Anyone who has been around with a bit of sense is familiar with Jack's shrewd tactics of pitting people against each other, making you feel that you are either with him or against him. In the shul now he has effectively created an "us" and "them," which conveniently ostracizes anyone that is a threat to him (whether it be a Rabbi, previous Rabbis, the MLC or anyone that may challenge his authority). Instead of trying to welcome new and dynamic people, he cultivates an environment of fear and paranoia (which is why I and other I know are concerned with using our names). (Jack would be surprised if he knew who was writing this; we are friendly).
* Jack has nicely set up David Landis to do the dirty work and open himself up to ridicule or worse with all his outlandish claims of conspiracies. I feel sad for David, who doesn't see how he's being used.
* Jack has his Alan and Bert to help rile up the incite the I personally witnessed how they sadly incited good people in our shul, including Fred, to attack what they tragically called "outsiders." Is any Jew an outsider in a shul -- whether they are member or not?! I was so embarrassed by the behavior of some of our shul members, and though they are responsible for their actions, I know that they were misled by those seeking to maintain control. And to feel justified for this outrageous behavior the conspiracy theories (like it is with all lies) have to grow and grow, to justify and feel good that "we are saving our shul."
* What are we fighting for: barely a minyan or two that will soon sadly die? Does anyone care about the shul enough to just want it to grow? Is control of one person more important than fulfilling the shul's mandate?
* As far as the elections go -- we all know that it was a sham. Give me a break -- suddenly 80+ people attend regularly (monthly) and are therefore eligible voters! Why then pray tell do we have only 25 regulars... I feel bad for Rabbi Wall who was forced to compromise himself and "select" Jews who are eligible voting members. I understand that some wanted to ensure that they win the election -- but is this what we had to stoop to: a rigged farce?!
* We should be thanking anyone that joins out shul. Every healthy shul knows that to grow you need new members. New members bring in a new dynamic. Sometimes their may be tensions between new and old -- that's very natural. But people in good faith sit down and work out their differences. Why is that not happening here if Jack and our shul has such pure intentions. Instead of welcoming new people we are pillaging them. If that's not entrenchment and control, what is?
* I haven't seen so much action in the shul in all the years that I have been here. Where was all the passion until now? Why was anyone not calling in the troops to ensure that our shul should have hundred of people on Shabbos?! Shouldn't we be embarrassed of ourselves to the obvious fact -- as so many are pointing out now -- that we are more concerned with one man's control than our own shul?!
* Yet, that is what our shul has stooped to. The shul of one man, with a few lackeys doing his dirty work. No wonder we only have our 25 people, and anyone else coming in with a bit of vibrancy, doesn't return...

[Bert]

Now, this e mailed named me, Bert, and so it is personal. The person writing the email, hides behind his flapping shirt tails, slovenly as he comes to shul, once in a great while, smiling, supercillious, overtly arrogant, not even remotely observant, not even a 'regular', now writes this email, as he has been seduced for one reason or the other by the Lubavacher, he is lost and is now lashing out at everyone he sees, petulant, puerile, not knowing what now to do, that his being the 'patron' to Mr Jacobson has been suceesfully aborted,and as most cowards has'nt the courage to put his name to his rant. If he is worried about attendance, where is he on a regular shabbos, except for the rare times he graces us with his exhalted presence he never showed up. I resent strongly in being named, and well, I was, in the first hour, to realize the situation we had gotten ourselves in and if I said so, this is part of free speech, and I did not slander, libel or say more than what I observed and to which I pointed out what I saw, and so, too did the other members realize I was right, and now, I stand accused. It has come to this, well all I can say to our comrade in shirt tails, wearing his Chesire smile, feh. Bert

[More Info (Part 1)]

As many Failed Messiah readers have realized, the reporting done by Sharon Udasin of the Jewish Week, regarding the recent controversy between the Community Synagogue Center (CSC) and the Meaningful Life Center (MLC), can be considered, at best, incomplete. Sharon admitted as much in her comment to the original Failed Messiah posting of the article (http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2010/02/chabad-move-to-take-over-nyc-shul-blocked-for-now-678.html?cid=6a00d83451b71f69e20120a8952041970b#comment-6a00d83451b71f69e20120a8952041970b). Unfortunately, she omitted many salient facts and mischaracterized other things that were known to her before she went to press and she has so far failed to correct the record.

It appears that Sharon believes that this is a fight between two shul factions. She could not be more wrong. Almost 98% of the eligible shul voters backed the CSC slate of candidates. The story is about the failed attempt of interlopers to take control of a synagogue. While the article’s headline was catchy, a more accurate one would be “Regulars Successfully Fight Outsiders Attempt To Take Over Shul.”

02/09/10 Article Omissions

While no article can cover every aspect of a story, there were a couple of material omissions that would have otherwise changed the tenor of the story:

1. Background
1. Sharon originally wrote about the MLC tenancy in the September 24, 2008 issue of the Jewish Week (http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c36_a13498/News/New_York.html). This article nor any of the concerns raised in it and whether they proved to be well founded were mentioned in the more recent article (http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c36_a17897/News/New_York.html).
2. In the 09/24/08 article, Sharon
   wrote that there were already concerns that the MLC might take over
   the shul. Rabbi Jacobson said “I’m not looking to take over the
   synagogue and they’re not looking to take over the Meaningful Life
   Center” --- methinks the Lady doth protest too much. Rabbi Jacobson
   revealed his true motives at the election in his hostile takeover attempt
   of the synagogue. CSC, of course, has not attempted to take over MLC.

1. MLC




1. Jacobson (who is not maintaining
   the pretense that he is a member of CSC and/or is entitled to a vote)
   showed up at his landlord’s meeting and requested to speak --- he
   wanted to influence the outcome of events. He even asked CSC voters
   why they weren’t voting for him.


2. Jacobson’s mother (Sylvia
   Jacobson) was a signatory on the MLC members’ nominating petition
   and MLC’s executive director (Elinor Chayo) was a nominee for the
   MLC members’ slate. Neither of them has ever attended CSC services.
3. Rabbi Jacobson has not lived
   up to the spirit of or the requirements of the lease between CSC and
   MLC:




1. MLC has not paid rent for
   the 2nd half of 2009.


2. Jacobson has not paid the
   fair amount of revenue to the shul as per the lease (he only paid CSC
   $1,733.20 for the first half of 2009).


3. MLC was supposed to provide
   a monthly accounting in order to allows CSC to determine the amount
   of rent due. To date, MLC has failed to comply with this provision of
   the agreement.



4. Philip Namanworth, a teacher
   at MLC, sent in a "membership" check and application with James
   Garfinkel (see below). It was delivered a week prior to the election
   and after the election was already announced.

1. MLC Members



1. The MLC members, most of whom
   have never attended a CSC service, never reached out to the shul with
   their concerns prior to sending their letter demanding an election.
   A couple of questions that were left unanswered in the article regarding
   the MLC slate:




1. If the MLC members would have
   won the election, how would they govern? This question was finally answered
   in Alan Dorfman’s letter (see below). How would they treat MLC?
   As they are members and/or officers of MLC, would they treat MLC favorably
   at the expense of CSC? Would they honor their fiduciary duty to CSC
   and not violate NPC-L § 715?


2. Why did the MLC members not
   reach out to the board, prior to calling a new election?


3. What were their concerns?
   What was their motivation? As they had never really attended CSC services,
   why were they unhappy?


4. Why do people who have rarely
   (if ever) attended a shul want to be its trustees? The election was
   the first time most of the MLC voters have ever attended a CSC event.



2. Almost all of the MLC members
   do not live in the neighborhood and many do not even live in Manhattan.
   Some even live as far away as California and Canada.

1. MLC’s Double Standard:




1. How would a MLC member feel
   if people, who have no connection to the shul attended by the MLC member,
   decide they should run it?
2. How would a MLC member feel
   if people, who have no connection to MLC, decide they should run it?


3. MLC does not want the purchase
   of seats for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur to automatically grant membership
   rights in MLC. However, MLC offered automatic membership in CSC
   upon the purchase of seats in MLC for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.
   In fact, while the purchase of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur seats in
   MLC does not make you a member in MLC, MLC believe it makes you a member
   in CSC! Why the lack of reciprocity? Obviously this is simply
   a gimmick to take over CSC.


4. The lease explicitly provides
   that there will be two entities under one roof. If there are two entities,
   why would MLC attendees be able to vote in CSC’s election? Is
   this not a breach of the lease? MLC members (see Alan Dorfman’s
   letter) believe attendance at MLC events equals attendance at CSC services.


5. According to MLC’s Certificate
   of Incorporation, MLC is required to hold its annual election in November.
   The miniscule amount of trustees who castigated CSC for not holding
   elections do not care whether or not MLC held its annual elections.
   In fact, the MLC attendees who came from far and wide to vote in CSC’s
   election (many sending in proxies and appearing in person to cast their
   ballots) to assert their rights as members of CSC, totally failed to
   even ask when and where MLC’s elections would be held. One would imagine
   that individuals, who are so attuned to their right to vote in a religious
   corporation in which they have (at best) a minuscule relationship, would
   seek to enforce that right in a religious corporation in which they
   are heavily involved in. But no! All of MLC attendees, who vigorously
   and with great passion came to vote in CSC’s election, failed to even
   think of MLC’s elections.

1. MLC’s Attempt to Interfere
   with the Election:


1. Sharon did not mention the
   30 “membership applications” and checks that the shul received the
   Monday before the election. 29 of the “membership applications”
   were hand delivered by the prominent financial consultant James Garfinkel;
   the other “membership application” was sent in by Moshe Drizin.
   This last minute attempt to pad the voters’ roll was a blatant attempt
   to influence an election. According to NYS law, anyone who joins
   after the election is noticed is ineligible to vote.


2. Garfinkel was one of the nominees
   on the MLC slate.


3. Many of the checks that Garfinkel
   delivered are dated from early January (and there is even one check
   dated in 2009), but all of them were delivered on 02/01/10; 1 check
   was even dated 02/05/10 (Shuli Halak --- see below), 2 days before the
   election. While most of the checks are dated in 2010, the “membership
   applications” are either dated in September 2009 or contain no date.
   Did they hold back the checks as a last minute surprise?


4. Garfinkel wrote 1 check for
   the "membership application" of 10 individuals. Why
   should people who were not even willing to donate money to the shul
   be entitled to a vote? Garfinkel is one of MLC’s generous benefactors.
   Could Garfinkel buy the election by designating anyone off the street
   as a member (with their consent of course) and then paying membership
   dues for him? Is this what the Religious Corporations Law means by an
   annual election? Was the MLC slate trying to buy an election? How can
   any decent person support such actions? For Garfinkel and Jacobson,
   it is cheaper to pay for 60 to 100 pseudo members ($32,500) than to
   purchase the building (FMV is in the millions).
5. If the votes of these 30 (MLC)
   individuals were not counted from the final tally in accordance with
   NY NPCL, there would be 83 qualified voters (and 155 total voters) for
   the CSC slate and 2 qualified voters (and 68 MLC members who claim a
   right to vote) for the MLC slate. Therefore, there would be more qualified
   voters (83) for the CSC slate than total voters for the MLC slate (70).
   As per NYS law, a qualified voter is someone who regularly attends and
   contributes to the shul.

[More Info (Part 2)]

02/09/10 Article Inaccuracies

1. Election Law: The standard applied by the shul is rooted in NY State Law (see NY RCL § 195); it was not an ad hoc standard applied by the shul or Rabbi Wall.

1. MLC Members’ motive:
   MLC members wanted to take over the building. Despite their protestations
   to the contrary, actions speak louder than words --- their slate had
   3 CSC congregants and 21 MLC members and except for Raquel Mehlman,
   none of their nominees bothered to attend shul services between the
   date the election was announced and the election itself.

1. Election Results: The
   final vote of eligible voters was 83-2.

1. Shul Attendance: “Within
   a few months of the initial membership drive, the synagogue population
   grew significantly” --- the growth in attendance has only occurred
   in the past couple of months because of the addition of Rabbi Wall as
   CSC rabbi and not because of MLC’s efforts. Almost all of the MLC
   members have never attended a shul service.

1. Shulli Hallak: Shulli Hallak has a prominent place in Sharon’s article as an aggrieved MLC member.
1. Hallak is quoted as saying: “’I got a letter saying welcome to Sixth Street — I thought I was a member,' she added, noting that she made her check out to the shul and has attended Shabbat services. Hallak questioned the legality of repealing their memberships or voting rights."
2. However, Hallak admitted in her membership application (which was delivered by Garfinkel, along with her “membership” check, a week before the election) that she has never been to CSC events.

Sharon’s Chabad Bias

Please check out Sharon Udasin’s personal website (http://www.sharonudasin.com/). She is someone who appears to be very sympathetic towards Chabad (http://www.sharonudasin.com/2010/02/super-bowl-xliv-ill-do-it-for-the-saints/), which explains why she became very defensive when Shmarya characterized MLC as a Chabad organization. She knew the following facts that connected MLC and Chabad when she was writing her article: (i) Sylvia Jacobson, Rabbi Jacobson’s mother, was one of the people who nominated the MLC slate, (ii) Moshe Drizin negotiated on MLC’s behalf with shul members prior to the election and he sent in a “membership” check 1 week prior to the election, (iii) Eleanor Chayo, MLC’s executive director, was a board nominee on the MLC slate, and (iv) Mordechai Bistritzky was also a board nominee on the MLC slate. All four people voted in the election for the MLC slate.

The Current Issue of the Jewish Week

Sharon faulted Shmarya for only presenting Landis’s quote without presenting an alternative view from either Pace or Jacobson (“And you started the post off with the quote from Landis saying that Jacobson was doing something "fraudulent" without then presenting Jacobson and Pace's side of the story.”). First, what is the relevance of Jacobson’s view? Jacobson is a tenant of the shul; what right does he have in the makeup of his landlord’s board? Secondly, the Jewish Week presented two letters from MLC members and none from shul members; why wasn’t the shul’s side presented?

However, the letter from Alan Dorfman (http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c53_a17924/Editorial__Opinion/Letter.html) was very indicative of MLC’s duplicity. Dorfman claims that the integrity of the election was compromised. Unfortunately, it was Dorfman who compromised the integrity of the election. After the election was already announced and a week before it was to be held, Dorfman submitted a check (which was hand delivered by James Garfinkel) for a family member’s (Seymor Dorfman) “membership dues”. Fortunately, at least Dorfman was honest in his letter that he wanted to hand control of the synagogue to Rabbi Jacobson, the shul’s tenant. Dorfman also does not realize that attendance at a tenant’s events is not the same as attendance at the landlord’s “divine worship” (this is the language from the NYS statute).

The information contained in this posting can be confirmed with the shul’s officers.

Thank you.

[Diogenes Levine]

Full disclosure:

"Another concerned congregant", writing on the 22nd, is actually the OTHER shul member who, along with Raquel, ran on the Give-The-Real-Estate-To-Jacobson slate. He is also, along with Raquel, one of the two total votes that Jacobson got from actual shul members.

[Diogenes Levine]

The most important point that the Jewish Week article left out (deliberately?) is this:

Matthew Pace got the board of the shul to allow Jacobson to function there by promising that Jacobson would bring in money -- he didn't -- and members. Real, actual breathing bodies who would attend services there. He didn't do that either.

Instead, Jacobson -- a man so crooked he could hide behind a corkscrew -- collected money from his poor duped followers and sent in checks for 70 memberships at once, and thirty more later. Those members included people in Texas, Canada, etc., etc., his mother in Brooklyn -- in other words, nobody who would actually attend services, and almost none who were even in walking distance of the shul.

Now, if those people wanted to actually support the shul itself, like they claim, and not just Jacobson, they could just as easily have made donations to the shul instead of buying memberships. After all, none of them had any intention of actually attending services there, except maybe for the High Holiday services Jacobson was running in the community room while the 6th St. congregation had its own services upstairs.

But Jacobson didn't want them to make donations and support he shul;; he wanted them to buy memberships and vote for his hand-picked board who would help him steal the real estate.

And that's the story. As the saying goes, just 'follow the money'.

The most irritating part of the JW article -- and of much of the discussion here -- is that it couches the conflict in terms of new members vs. old members. Nice story, completely false. "Members" of a shul are people who care about the shul, who have some connection to the kehile, who attend regular services there, who want their children to be connected with a shul -- pick whichever you like. But they are NOT well-meaning dupes who are only involved because they are, however unknowingly, trying to help their spiritual leader steal some real estate.

And that is the true and simple description of the Jacobson followers who showed up at 6th St. on February 7th because Jacobson asked them to. They are not, by any reasonable definition of the term, 'members of the congregation'.

V.I. Lenin, another major league crook, had a phrase for people who allow themselves to be used like that -- he called them "useful idiots".

[Daviid]

Who is it that coined the phrase: If you want to know someone's true intentions, just see what they accuse others of?

The last post says it all: I have heard from more than several Synagogue members (including board members) that they will do whatever Jack says they should do. After all, he is the one that cares most and is the "savior" of the Synagogue. MAny of the board members will tell you that they were placed on the board over the years by Jack, and some will even acknowledge, simply to be his "rubber stamp." Are they "useful idiots" beings used as pawns by a real estate lawyer, who has been known to do more than one dubious act in his real estate career?

If I had to pick between Jack and the Rabbi as to who is making a real estate move -- I would use the last post's directive: Follow the money. Look closely at who is into money and real estate, and who is the one hurling "real estate" takeover accusations. Look at who has dedicated his life to business and who has dedicated his life to revitalizing Jews.

It's an old trick: Always accuse your adversary of what you yourself want to achieve. And the proof is in the pudding: Why has the shul suddenly gotten so active, with all these elaborate decelerations and strategic -- while allowing the attendance and membership to dwindle over the years?

Who -- except a savvy real estate guy who feels he "owns" the place with shall we say business-like intentions -- would even suggest that a shul can be "taken over"? Who does the shul exactly belong to that it is now concerned with being "taken over"? Doesn't a shul belong to its members -- all its members -- and not to one or a few individuals? Would anyone accuse someone of a "takeover if they did not feel that it "belongs" to them?!

Did Jack and Co. buy the shul with their own money that they feel it is "theirs" to own?!

Anyone truly dedicated to the shul and its survival should above all be declaring: Let us do whatever it takes to bring new Jews into this sacred space. Instead of investing so much time and energy to creating fabricated conspiracy theories of "takeovers," let us welcome all Jews, and let the Synagogue grow into a place that we can all be proud of -- living up to the intention of those Jews that spent their hard-earned money to buy and renovate the shul...