South Head closing its doors again

July 12, 2017 by J-Wire Staff
Read on for article

A member of the Management Advisory Committee of the embattled South Head Synagogue has told J-Wire its administrator will close the building today. 

A member of the Management Advisory Committee of the embattled South Head Synagogue has told J-Wire its administrator will close the building today.

The is the second time in less than two weeks the synagogue’s doors and the mikveh have been closed to its members.

The doors were reopened when interested parties secured funds for the administrator’s need for day to day uses.

Members of the secured creditors and the board have told J-Wire: “The terms of the offer for the Rabbi’s departure contained in the South Head Synagogue Unity Plan were totally unacceptable to the secured creditors, the board and a number of key members of the congregation. The closure is extremely disappointing when one considers that we have a vibrant and cohesive community. The vibrancy was evident by the increase in attendance and participation of our members during the period that the Rabbi was absent and by the total collapse of minyans at the synagogue since his return, while the nearby pop-up minyan has had excellent attendance.”

All involved confirm that they were prepared to enshrine and protect the fundamental Orthodoxy precept of South Head Shul as is already stipulated in the Shul’s constitution.

An inability to reach agreement makes liquidation inevitable.

A meeting of the creditors is scheduled for Friday.


10 Responses to “South Head closing its doors again”
  1. Jodi kofsky says:

    My gosh Robert! Your choice of analogy above explains almost everything about your approach over the past months.

    A relationship of marriage involves personal engagement, attachment, emotion, care, communication, passion, spirituality, partnership, role modelling, growth, bringing out the best in each other, commitment to a higher cause beyond the individual, etc.
    The relationship between a landlord and tenant is purely contractual, non-personal and non-emotional.

    A marriage therefore is an almost perfect analogy for a Rav and a kehillah. Your choice of a landlord/tenant relationship shows how completely wrong you have had this whole thing from the very start!

    • Chana Mankowitz says:

      I agree with Jodi’s eloquent response to Robert’s cold comment and questionable analogy.

    • Robert Krochmalik says:

      Dear Mrs Kofsky

      So in keeping with your marriage analogy say you feel your marriage is 32 years to Mr Kofsky has irretrievably broken down, would you throw My Kofsky out of the house, change the locks, place armed guards to prevent him returning and then go to the Family Court to seek approval for your actions?

      And is the Family Court said your actions were invalid and inappropriate would you threaten to burn the house down?

      I think not?

      And what about your 800 children. Shouldn’t they have a say in whether the house that is also theirs, should be burned to the ground just because you are unhappy with the way things have turned out?

      My guess is that instead of burning the house down you may seek the help of a marriage guidance counsellor to see if the marriage can be repaired. And if it can’t, I assume you would go to mediation to split the spoils of your 32 year marriage fairly and equitably, rather than burning dozen the house.

      I look forward to your response and I assume so does Mr Kofsky.

      By the way, the reason I used the shopping centre and tenant analogy was because the way you and your band of merry men were treating the Rabbi was more like that One would exoect of a landlord to a tenant rather than a loving caring compassionate and all the other adjectives you so beautifully use that should have been the way you treated your Rabbi after 32 years of devoted service to you and all his Kehilla.

  2. Judy Maynard says:

    Robert, I appreciate your efforts to help save the Shul. However your focus is always on the matrimonial home, while you ignore the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. If one party wants nothing further to do with the other, and the other refuses to vacate the home, what are the choices? Telling the parties they must stick together, no matter what, to save the home, even after counselling has failed, is pointless.

    • Judy Maynard says:

      Not that I’m suggesting liquidation is the way to go, but simply asking, what are the options? There is of course the Beth Din, just a question of how long this would take.

      • Robert Krochmalik says:

        Dear Judy, I’m not sure that your analogy of a breakdown in a marriage between husband and wife can compared to that of a rabbi and his kehilla. But continuing your analogy if the wife kicks the husband out of the house and places armed guards to stop him entering and then goes to Court to seek validation and the Court says that the wife was not entitled to kick the Husband out, is it right for the wife to burn the house down? Surely better for the husband and wife to sit down and mediate all the issues or to seek counsel from the Beth Din. Having said all that I feel a better analogy is that of a shopping mall and a tenant which tenant has a long term lease and where the landlord wishes to kick the tenant out and asks the Court to validate the termination only to find the Court ruling against the landlord. Surely again it is appropriate to mediate a solution or seek counsel from a Beth Din. Burning down the house and then saying it is the tenant’ fault, what else could i do Is hardly the Jewish way to settle disputes.

  3. Robert Krochmalik says:

    Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that the decision to liquidate or not will be a decision for the creditors of the Shul in which the three secured creditors Hochroth Mann and Naumburger comprise over 90% of the total and so the decision to liquidate the Shul or otherwise lies in the hands of these secured creditors.

    It seems only like yesterday that James Hochroth proudly announced that these three members had paid off Westpac to prevent such an action and today it is they who are promulgating it.

    I wonder if Westpac would have voted to liquidate when only owed $1.5 and this loan was secured over a $7 million property. I suggest otherwise.

  4. Gerald Munitz says:

    When employees retire after devoting their lives to their jobs they don’t demand that tributes be given to them.Why does this rabbi and rebetzin make these outrageous demands. What’s more ludicrous is this sense of entitlement that this couple has as well as their sheer arrogance.

  5. Halina Rubenstein says:

    A sad day indeed for the South Head community.

    I hope that J-Wire will make available the Rabbi’s right of reply to the comments provided by the secured creditors/board in this report.

  6. Harold Sommer says:

    The lasting tribute to The Milecki’s will be one tinged with controversy.

Speak Your Mind

Comments received without a full name will not be considered
Email addresses are NEVER published! All comments are moderated. J-Wire will publish considered comments by people who provide a real name and email address. Comments that are abusive, rude, defamatory or which contain offensive language will not be published

    Rules on posting comments