Clark synagogue members vote ‘no,’ stalling proposed move to Westfield

by Elaine Durbach
NJJN Bureau Chief/Central

With almost 80 percent of the congregants present, members of Temple Beth O’r/Beth Torah in Clark on Monday, July 24, voted against a proposed amendment to the temple’s constitution that would have permitted a move away from the town.

The vote, 120 against and 96 for the move, effectively stalled plans approved by the board in June to relocate the Conservative congregation in Westfield. Board members had hoped to relocate the religious school and youth activities before new classes begin in September and to hold services in Westfield as soon as a suitable space for a sanctuary could be found.

Blocking the move was a clause in the temple’s constitution, defining the congregation as being in Clark. The board voted two weeks earlier to amend the clause, but to take effect, it required at least a two-thirds vote in favor from a gathering of the general membership.

Those championing the move, including congregation president David Brotman; his predecessor, Richard Brown; and their religious leader, Rabbi Michael Klayman, have pointed out that the membership has dwindled in recent years, making it difficult to cover operating costs. They hoped that a move to Westfield would bring in some of the young Conservative families living there and thereby revitalize the school and youth programs.

Those opposed argued that the move would alienate too many members and make it impossible for those who observe the prohibition against driving on Shabbat to attend Shabbat services. A number of them have homes within walking distance of the Valley Road location, where the synagogue has been for 48 years.

Some members had taken the middle ground, asking for more information and more time to consider the pros and cons of moving.

Brotman said, “The bottom line is that after being educated on all the issues, the congregation just didn’t want to risk alienating the members who want to stay in Clark, that everyone has something to offer, and congregational unity outweighs the benefits of moving. So, while they acknowledged the need to address the demographic shifts, they’re willing to work together to overcome them.”

Brotman has pointed out that the discussion on the congregation’s future plans will continue, with all options up for debate. A vote on the location clause can be scheduled again for a later date, when both sides will have had more time to examine all the issues involved.

Richard Lavroff of Clark was among those calling for a delay. “I’m happy we prevailed,” he said. “Now we have a lot of work to do to rectify the problems we face. I hope there’s going to be an investigation of what’s involved in moving or merging and we get some real information. I just felt that we were flying blind, and we didn’t know enough. But the subject can be revisited once we do.”

Klayman is away and could not be reached for comment.