In a harsh critique of Bylaw 67, a new governance structure to be introduced at the upcoming Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) plenary, an opinion piece by Michael Brown in The CJN (“The assisted suicide of the CJC: Does it matter?,” June 14) asks whether the Canadian Jewish community should “laugh or cry” over this long-needed change to CJC’s governing structure.

Those in our community who have been “on the ground” and part of grassroots Jewish advocacy for years know full well and understand that the changes being contemplated are necessary if CJC wishes to maintain its status as Canada’s most vital Jewish advocacy organization. Instead of laughing or crying, today’s leadership is making another statement: “It is time to stand and applaud the changes to CJC’s governance.”

The article argues that the democratic structure of CJC is being eroded, that we are in fact “assisting in its suicide.” Nonsense. CJC has always been the sum of its parts. The grassroots emanated from the regions, and within the new governance model, regions remain the source of our strength for the future. Hence elections remain a vital and necessary part of regional governance.

Bearing in mind that regional chairs will sit on the new streamlined executive, there is now clearly more influence and impact for democratically elected lay leaders to have a real and ongoing influence on the Jewish body politic. In fact, the regions will have more representation in the new model than they ever had in the past.

The other changes being contemplated in Bylaw 67 address a past governing structure hampered and ill-served by procedures that, while appearing democratic on the outside, were far from it on the inside. Indeed, in the last 25 years, there has only been one election at a CJC triennial plenary, in 1995. And that one was so riddled with problems that an internal judicial inquiry had to be called. In fact, at times it was a struggle to fill vacant officers’ positions and the opportunity for “amcha” to be part of that process, despite the veneer of a democratic front, was at best limited, if not non-existent.

In the past, CJC comprised a national council of more than 1,000 people, a national executive of more than 125 people, and a national officers body of more than 50. This is in addition to regional councils, executives and officers that also numbered in the hundreds. The sad part was that very often they were only names on a page. Few, if any, participated or were active in the ongoing advocacy affairs of the community. Truth be told, it was a small group of officers and the appointed committees of CJC – such as the community relations committee, the Internet hate committee, the national Darfur committee or the war crimes committee – that undertook the necessary work.

Bylaw 67 ensures that the committee structure not only remains intact but is enhanced. Through Bylaw 67, a streamlined executive established through an open and apparent communal procedure recognizes and allows for straightforward flow of and access to information, as well as the ability to respond immediately to events that have an impact on Jewish communal life. It provides an ease of governance that is transparent and fully accountable to the community that funds it.

Finally, Brown suggests that Canadian Jewish advocacy is becoming “Americanized,” thus playing on the reflexive Canadian aversion to all things south of the border. The Jewish community in Canada, however, knows better. Organizations such as the famed American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, and the American Jewish Congress, all operating with a similar governance structure as being contemplated by CJC, are arguably among the most influential lobby groups in the world. Why not take the very best of their governing bylaws, coupled with the very best of ours, and create a new and dynamic CJC that will be as always uniquely Canadian and uniquely Jewish?

Change is difficult. But holding on to false vestiges of the past to forgo change is not in the best interests of amcha.