Synagogues resist financial reporting bill
by Ted Siefer
The Jewish Advocate
January 19, 2006
Jewish groups and lawmakers are rallying around synagogues in opposing a bill that would require religious institutions to make the same financial disclosures as nonprofit organizations.
"There's been a groundswell of concern and support for our efforts in opposing this bill," said Alan Teperow, executive director of the Synagogue Council of Massachusetts, which stepped up its lobbying efforts on Beacon Hill after the bill was passed overwhelmingly by the state Senate in early November.
The disclosure bill, proposed by Sen. Marian Walsh, D-west Roxbury, and endorsed by Gov. Mitt Romney, is scheduled to be debated at a House of Representatives hearing on Jan 25.
"This bill would impose a significant and unanticipated financial burden on all religious congregations in this state. This is an egregious violation of the separation of church and state," reads a letter from the Synagogue Council urging religious leaders to express opposition to the Walsh bill.
Among the organizations that have come out against the bill are the Massachusetts Council of Churches; the Islamic Council of New England; the regional offices of the Reform and Conservative movements; and the Anti-Defamation League.
Last week, the opposition was joined by the Jewish Community Relations Council, which had earlier refrained from taking a position on the issue. A statement issued by the organizations public policy committee notes that the bill "unfairly and disproportionately" affects religious institutions such as synagogues, which have lay-led structures.
Opposition also appears to be mounting in the House of Representatives.
I'm very opposed to the bill and I'm going to be working hard to defeat it," said Jewish Rep. Ruth Balser, D-Newton, who has been meeting with officials from the Synagogue Council and JCRC about the bill.
Echoing the feeling of many of its critics, Balser said that the bill grew out of specific problems affecting the Catholic archdiocese.
The bill was a "response to the very understandable pain on the part of many Catholics stemming from the child abuse scandal and the parish closings," said Balser.
But, Balser noted, because of the centralized nature of the archdiocese, only four dioceses in the state would have to file disclosure statements, whereas individual synagogues, Protestant churches and mosques would each have to file paperwork. "There's an unfairness across different religions that concerns me," she said.
While acknowledging that the bill arose out of specific problems concerning the Archdiocese of Boston, Sen. Walsh said that it would benefit all tax payers and donors. "Religious organizations that oppose [this bill] often do so without having the benefit of feedback from their flock," she said. "When an entity is a public charity, there is a social contract. we owe to the taxpayer and donor a minimum of accountability and transparency."
Jewish politicians expressed a range of positions on the bill, with Reps. Frank Smizik, D-Brookline, and Jay Kaufman, D-Lexington, opposing it and Rep. Dave Linsky, D-Natick, supporting it. Others had not yet decided how to vote.
Jewish opponents of the bill, however, said that synagogue members already have ways of addressing concerns about financial accountability.
Teperow noted that any congregation member should "feel free" to pose financial questions to a synagogue's leadership or board of directors. Beyond that, "an individual can go to the attorney general's office and they can intervene without an imposition for filing and accounting costs." The synagogues Council can also mediate financial disputes, Teperow said, noting the council's role 20 years ago in stopping an individual from selling off assets belonging to the Vilna Shul in Beacon Hill, now the home of the Boston Center for Jewish Heritage.
Opponents are concerned that it would allow the government to intrude in religious affairs.
However, the Boston-based Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, which has taken strong stands on church-state issues in the past, does not see the bill as posing a threat. At a committee meeting two weeks ago it adopted a neutral position on the bill.
But for Teperow, the Walsh bill is a "slippery slope. If the attorney general starts reviewing forms filed by congregations, it will then ask for other information that properly belongs to members of a congregation, not a government agency."
