The Steering Committee says our only option is to merge with Rodef Shalom. They promise extensive remodeling to Rodef's building – if a future capital campaign funds it. They assure us that everything will work out, we will be equal partners, and it's fine to rush this vote. They ask us to choose hope over care.
A "yes" vote commits us to unclear obligations. A "no" vote means "wait until we understand what we're agreeing to". Please be an informed voter.
FACT: 25% of the Board of Trustees voted against the brit (legal contract).
FACT: The brit binds us to a second contract, the Shared Service Agreement. This contract does not exist, yet today's vote would approve it.
FACT: Our board has not seen a budget or financial details of both congregations.
FACT: Our officers did not investigate any other options for Temple Sinai, such as relocating to a space in Squirrel Hill that better fits our current needs or seeking rental income in our existing building.
FACT: Under the brit, Temple Sinai commits to relocate. Rodef commits to have an accessible ark.
FACT: If we vote yes, and for any reason the merger does not happen, Temple Sinai must provide rabbinic and cantorial services to Rodef for up to two years (even though Rodef has an interim rabbi and time to hire).
FACT: Our officers declined a request to share the contents of the brit we are voting on with the membership. After a member obtained a copy and published it, it was added to the Temple Sinai website.
FACT: Temple Sinai has already allocated and mostly spent more than $100,000 for merger expenses. This does not include moving expenses. This expense is in addition to the existing budget deficit.
FACT: Our board has not seen the report of building assessments done by the architectural firm, nor has it seen a projection of membership size and building needs over several years.
FACT: Rodef Shalom has a $20M endowment (not counting its cemetery fund) but has not fixed existing problems in their building. We do not know the cost of required work.
FACT: The steering committee publicly promised that this vote would require a supermajority. There were ways to do that under our bylaws.
FACT: Our officers have declined to publicly answer key questions from members.
QUESTION: Are you satisfied with the level of transparency and care we have seen so far? Have your questions been answered? Does everyone fully understand what this yes vote means?