The Six Year Rule: relic or relevant?
- Ben Vos
- Mar 12, 2025
- 3 min read
The US Byelaws set a maximum term of six years for most Honorary Officers and members of Synagogue Councils.[1] This is the ‘Six Year Rule’.
Forsooth…why?
No reason is given for this restriction in the Byelaws. Why does it exist, when some communities struggle to recruit volunteers willing to devote time and effort to their communities in leadership roles? What is the point of curtailing the ability of those who want to serve the community? Especially at the cost of having to start relationships again between, for instance, Rabbis and Rebbetzens and a new Executive, every few years?
Rationale
We might assume the following reasons for the Six Year Rule:
New ideas, methods and atmosphere;
‘Freeing’ incumbent Honorary Officers;
Avoiding ‘entrenchment’; and
Sound management. [2]
It’s worth looking at these assumed reasons in more detail.
‘Freeing’ incumbent lay leaders
As Newton wrote, “Every body perseveres in its…uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.”[3] In this regard, some very dedicated lay-leaders are a lot like apples: US communities are blessed with astounding lay-leaders who are sometimes driven to serve their communities until they’re interrupted.
But we all have a duty not to exploit the goodwill of our most dedicated people. This is reason enough for the Six Year Rule to exist. Heaven forbid anyone should feel obliged to ‘carry on’ beyond their original intentions, still more to their own detriment.
Frequently I hear that a community "will collapse" if a certain person ceases their role, or that someone "is the shul". But no community merits to continue at the expense of a volunteer's freedom of action or welfare.
Further, the ‘essential person’ fallacy effectively pressures the incumbent to carry on, and allows others to rest easy, convinced that they needn’t try to relieve the incumbent.
New ideas, methods and atmosphere
A shul requires continuity, stability and for its functions to be carried out reliably and properly. But a community is a dynamic social project as well as a shul. Therefore the need for regular re-evaluation of the community’s goals and how to reach them, should be a constant feature of community life.
Avoiding entrenchment
It is sometimes a feature of declining communities that leadership concentrates in the hands of an ever-decreasing band of loyal community servants. Maybe there really is ‘nobody else’, in which case closure should be considered.
In the meantime, as a lay-leadership cohort contracts with time, they can become synonymous with the community itself. This isn’t always the case. But any occurrence is effectively the end of a ‘community’ and the start of a ‘club’.[4] The difference between these is a stronger dichotomy between insiders and outsiders. People might be members on paper, yet not in the ‘club’. The community-to-club phenomenon is too big a subject to address in full here. But Jewish communities should not be satisfied with a club atmosphere or clubbish practices.
Conclusion
At first glance, the Six Year Rule can seem a crude measure.
But the continuity of an organisation is less important than the Jewish good of its members and leaders.
And we’ve seen community leaders proved happily wrong, who had been convinced that they are the last generation of people who can or who want to lead. The opportunity of leadership must be made available to others before assuming there really are no successors.
Community leadership passing on at regular intervals is desirable and healthy. The more frequent the change, the more confident that incoming leaders can be that they won’t be ‘stuck’ or exhausted while at the wheel of HMS Shul. The easier it is to become a leader - and to leave leadership – the wider the range of leaders our communities can attract.
In my view, the Six Year Rule is no relic of the Byelaws, irrelevant to modern needs. It is useful, optimistic and a tool for renewal and growth.
As ever, please be in touch with any questions or criticisms!
0208 343 5672
[1] There are exceptions, and an process for exploring alternatives, which is applicable in some circumstances. The focus of this post is the rationale of the Six Year Rule, not the technical requirements.
[2] The Charity Governance Code recommends refreshment of Trustees of charities, at least every nine years. Honorary Officers and Synagogue Council members within the US are not Trustees, though HOs do hold some delegated responsibilities from our Trustees. The Charity Governance Code is a useful source of analogous principles.
[3] Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Book 1: Axioms, or Laws of Motion, by Isaac Newton (1687)
[4] Communities which on paper are thriving, can also develop a ‘club’ atmosphere, with members who are ‘in’ and members who are ‘out’.
Comments