Unorthodox tactics at the Orthodox Union convention

Voting practices called into question by concerned delegates

By Menachem Gottlieb

Issue of Dec. 19, 2008 / 22 Kislev 5769

The Orthodox Union held their national convention at the Ramada Hotel in Jerusalem from Nov. 26-30, with all the delegates convening on Saturday night, Nov. 29, to debate and pass resolutions and amendments.

There were over 100 voting delegates present at the height of the session, but as the night wore on, the number steadily dwindled to 65 or so. During the session –– consisting of heated debates on issues such as the lack of freedom of expression in Israel –– a number of teenagers without the requisite nametags were spotted in the back waving voting cards.

Sensing that something was wrong, delegate Shulamit Hawtof asked Mr. Stanley Weinstein, presiding Chairman of the resolutions committee, why these people were participating in the vote. Mr. Aaron Kinderlehrer, the presiding parliamentarian, explained that according to the most recent bylaws, it is legal for up to 10 NCSY teenagers to be delegates. However, Hawtoff noticed at least three boys in the back with voting cards.

“They were all voting as a bloc,” she said.

There were also three girls sitting in the front with voting cards. Throughout the proceedings, these girls looked towards David Luchins, Senior Vice President of the OU, for direction on what to vote for.

“I’m not familiar with the issues,” said one of the girls after the session, explaining that Luchins and an NCSY staff leader had requested that she come and vote.

Luchins had apparently solicited at least six teenage members of NCSY and as many as 10 staff members to act as voting delegates on his behalf. The teenagers had been solicited that night, as they wore no nametags and all of them had blue voting cards. According to a staff member, they were not with the OU over Shabbat.

“This is an outrage,” said Hawtoff. “The outcomes of some amendments were most certainly affected. “I feel that the whole resolutions process was tainted.”

Later that weekend, some senior OU officials expressed their dissatisfaction with Dr. Luchins’ tactics, but requested to remain anonymous. Luchins denied any wrongdoing.

It is unknown how many of the proposed amendments and resolutions were affected by Luchins’ tampering, but there is no question that the outcome of one particular resolution was affected.

There was a vote to table the resolution promoting “civility in speech” and to send it back for revision without adoption at the present time. In a close 30-32 vote, it was not tabled. The resolution mustered enough votes to avoid being tabled due to the added votes of Luchins’ NCSYers. In the resolution, the OU takes upon itself to criticize those in the Orthodox community who don’t speak civilly. Many delegates questioned the criteria of the OU’s criticism given its condemnation of an Orthodox Rabbi’s words last January.

“There were a number of close votes and I was saddened that the there are people in the organization who would stoop to such a low level,” Hawtoff asserted. “I really feel that the OU must have another makeup convention in which the process is conducted in a fair manner.”

Other delegates had similar reactions.

“I was up until 1:30 last evening because I was incensed at the failure of this organization’s leadership... resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment was defeated, that had to do with freedom of expression for Israelis,” said Michael Libbie, a delegate from Des Moines, Iowa in a post-convention interview. “I will go back to the U.S. with a whole different attitude about this error in judgment.”

The process was “not proper” according to Rabbi William Bloom of San Diego, California.

Dr. Bernard Lander, Honorary Vice President of the OU expressed concern that the OU has been turning towards the political left for some time.

“This is the first time that I have seen such a senior member of an organization so explicitly tamper with the outcome of a membership meeting,” said Hawtof. “With such senior members at its helm, the veracity of OU actions is severely in question.”

These issues were addressed by OU President Stephen Savitsky and Executive Vice President Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb in a joint statement issued to The Jewish Star on Tuesday, which explained that the OU constitution allows for NCSY delegates to participate in the resolutions process.

“We believe that this participation is important for the teenagers’ understanding of the issues confronting the Orthodox community today and to prepare them for future leadership roles,” they said. “Although the NCSYers were not present over Shabbat, they were all provided with written copies of the resolutions well in advance to study and to prepare for the session. Some may have prepared while others apparently did not.

“In light of the perception that unprepared delegates attended the session and voted as they were instructed, we have undertaken to review the whole delegate and resolutions process to address this issue,” the statement continued.

“However, we will certainly continue to involve all segments of our constituency, no matter what their age, gender or ideology.”

The statement also noted that delegates were given the opportunity to make their points of view known during the week and at the resolutions session itself.

“I thoroughly enjoyed my involvement with the OU convention, although I only played a peripheral and supportive role,” one group leader told OU staff members after the convention. “Admittedly, the process was not perfect, but it was head and shoulders above some other organizations as far as honesty and fairness, and just outright willingness to be open to the ideas of others.”