Nishmat Business Meeting
Jim, Carol, Max, Raja, Mindy, Vicky, Emily
(Ethel and Arlene did not attend, but phoned in a proxy opinion to Jim)
Tue Jan 13 2004
Topics we discussed
Treasurer's report
Event queries
Scheduling
Approval to post re soferet
Siddur changes
Distribution of minutes
Channel for information?
Meta-decision making
Decision Making
Treasurers Report
Previous Balance: $ 707
Income: + 54 (Dues)
Out go: - 118 (Childcare (2 x $35), Mailing (~ $ 48))
Balance: $ 643
Scheduling
Tu Bshvat. Most likely no.
Last night of Pesach return-to-chametz at Carol and Steve's. Tues, April 13
All other events are already scheduled.
Can we post information through our list about the only woman
currently qualified as a sopheret to write a Torah, and an appeal for
funds for this Torah project, sponsored by Kadima congregation in
Seattle?
No objection.
In addition, the sense of the business meeting is that such items can be posted without approval in the future.
Do we need to revise our system for distribution of business meeting minutes? At the last meeting we said we would post them on the web site, and it was said to be easy. But it didn't happen. So perhaps it's not easy.
Proposal: send minutes to the entire list. Secretary sends a draft to everyone who attended the last business meeting, there is a one week period for corrections, and then it goes to the listserv.
Action item: Jim to send Nov minutes at once, and these minutes
Passed.
We hope and intend that the web site will serve as an archive in the long run.
Do we have an official channel for getting information (e.g. another Nishmat participant's phone number or email address) from other Nishmat people? Carol would like to get fewer of these calls. The issue is that when people need an address, phone number, or email, they call Carol, because it's convenient.
Proposal: to ask Ethel whether she's willing to do this. Mindy to ask Ethel.
Agreed.
If so, make sure Ethel has the information. Send an announcement to the listserv to remind people to ask Ethel.
Proposed changes to siddur:
The general goal of these changes is to reduce the number of page turns and increase accessible English and transliteration.
pgs 42-43: reconfigure text to include Chatzi Kaddish with translation and transliteration and eliminate a page turn (eliminate temporary page)
pgs 44-45b: eliminate masculine version of Shema in keeping with our minhag that the feminine includes the masculine. Congregants and leaders would continue to be encouraged to daven in the gender and style of their choice.
Amidah: Eliminate non-numbered page after pg. 48E-alternative Amidah in Hebrew; illegible in many copies
pgs. 48G-M: replace with Nishmat-created pages that include translation for all and transliteration for most of the Amidah. The first four brachot would be in versions developed by our own liturgy project; the last three would be in traditional masculine versions with translation and transliteration.
p. 54: Replace Sephardic version of the Mourner's Kaddish with the Ashekenazic version that is better known (eliminate temporary page with Askenazic version); add song "Od Yavo Shalom".
Most of these should be non-controversial, they only add transliteration and reduce page turns. There are some deletions. One of them is the illegible Amidah. The other is the masculine shma. This might be controversial despite our minhag to understand the feminine form as including all people, just as the masculine has traditionally been understood.
During brief discussion, a variety of suggestions arose re: re-doing the sh'ma pages, including side by side masculine and feminine, and inclusion of cantillation marks. in light of time constraints, carol withdrew this part of the liturgy proposal.
Max points out that in the past, when we have modified the siddur, we have used the new material in a separate packet for a while. But since the goal is to improve the flow, the material needs to be tried in the book.
The sources for the translations and transliterations are our liturgy committee, Kehilla siddur, Kol Haneshema (the Reconstructionist siddur), Sim Shalom (Conservative siddur) and some other siddurs that Carol had on line.
It certainly needs proofreading and fine tuning of the layout.
Proposal:
Carol to announce the existence of these new pages to the listserve
Anyone who wants to get a copy for review can obtain one from Max, who will copy it, and to provide feedback to Carol by Jan 31. Carol would like feedback about the markup and the Hebrew on paper, not email. For translation, she prefers email.
Carol to incorporate feedback, and to copy the Amidah in light purple.
To insert these pages into the siddur before the Feb Shabbat.
(Marcia and Ed both volunteered to help with the production.)
To save the old pages, Raja to bring to the genizah if and when they are no longer desired.
Carol to send electronic files to Max by Wed night.
We note that this is an ongoing project, and we expect future revisions to the siddur.
The liturgy committee eagerly welcomes further participation at its meeting. ,
Meta-decision making. Do we take proxies? Some people recall that in the past, proxies had a vote. But people expressing an opinion by proxy have no way to be influenced by discussion. So we will hear them as sentiment, but not as "votes". We would encourage those who can't attend to email a quick statement, or even lengthy. For tonight we're not bound by proxies, and we are explicitly not setting precedent.
Decision making.
From last months minutes:
PROPOSAL TO CHANGE FROM CONSENSUS DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
(This is the proposal Vicky sent by email, clarified.)
Nishmat Shalom members strive to make all decisions by consensus, to work for solutions that meet the needs of all members. However, when consensus cannot be achieved, policy change decisions may be put to a vote, as follows:
On a trial basis lasting one year, Nishmat Shalom shall substitute for unanimous consensus a minimum of at least 6 people in the majority, representing at least 80% of those present, eg., 8/10, 8/9, 7/8, 6/7 (this means that more people would have to come to business meetings to make non-consensus policy changes). If fewer than 7 people are present, then unanimity is still required for policy change.
One year after this proposal is adopted
1. it will come up for renewal. It must be renewed by consensus.
2. If the policy is not renewed, then any decision that had been made during the year under the terms of the policy can be immediately called into question, and will be reconfirmed only if confirmed by the then-present consensus.
We did not get consensus on this, so it will be discussed at the next meeting.
-- end of quote --
We now resume discussion on this proposal, as clarified at last meeting
Note that this is a rather fragile decision making rule, since even one person could, in theory, undo any and all decisions made under this rule by first blocking consensus on renewing the policy, then blocking consensus on renewing the particular decision.
We clarified that "one year" means the first business meeting one year after today.
Jim reports that Arlene and Ethel had both called earlier to say they like this proposal.
The proposal was adopted by consensus, after spirited discussion.