Board of Deputies considers proposal to pay president for first time in its 266-year history

The JC has spoken to sources linked to the Board who both back and oppose the proposal.

Critics want to keep the post voluntary and unpaid, arguing that this remains “central to the character” of the office of president, who is a democratically elected communal representative, serving as a steward of the community rather than for personal financial gain.

They also argue that an unpaid position “helps protect the president’s independence” and removes the opportunity to make decisions based on personal financial consideration or to seek another term for financial benefit.

The critics of remuneration also doubt it is necessary to incentivise future candidates for the post.

One Board source said: “There have always been people with significant communal and leadership experience willing to serve despite the absence of a salary, and there is little evidence that the Board would struggle to find capable candidates under the existing system.”

Backers of the proposal say the “nature” of the presidency has changed “substantially” in modern times, making the traditional model increasingly difficult to sustain.

The president is expected to undertake a demanding schedule of government engagement, media appearances, meetings with political leaders, internal Board business and communal events. The role can involve evenings and weekends, as well as regular daytime commitments. For presidents who continue working in another profession, this can amount to “having two jobs at once”, a well-placed Board source said.

Previous office-holders have spoken of making up lost working hours during evenings and weekends, sometimes at “considerable cost” to their careers and family lives. Some former presidents are understood to have postponed retirement or otherwise suffered financially as a consequence of serving.

Supporters therefore argue that an unpaid presidency can restrict the pool of candidates to those who can afford to take substantial time away from their careers, or whose employers can accommodate the demands of the role.

Paying the president, they say, would not be about “rewarding someone for communal service but removing a financial barrier to serving”. It could allow people at different stages of their professional lives — particularly those in mid-career with family responsibilities — to consider standing.

Supporters of the proposal argue that the community should not have to rely on individuals being willing or able to absorb the financial cost of three years in the role.

They also point out that comparable roles in public organisations and Jewish communal life, including senior rabbinic leadership positions, are paid. They argue that “the level of responsibility and public visibility associated with the presidency justifies similar treatment”.

Supporters reject the argument that a salary would attract candidates primarily motivated by money. The president would still be elected by the Deputies, they point out, and a larger field of candidates “would actually dilute the problem of bad candidates coming forward because lots of better ones would come as well. Really, it would just give voters greater choice.”

A central disagreement, however, concerns the relationship between the president and the Board’s professional staff, particularly its chief executive.

Those opposed to remuneration argue that the Board already has a paid chief executive responsible for managing the organisation, overseeing staff and operations and implementing decisions made through its democratic and governance structures.

The president has traditionally occupied a different position: chairing the organisation’s democratic processes, providing political and communal leadership, overseeing the CEO and representing British Jews publicly.

Critics argue that this distinction between governance and management is important. “Paying the president could create ambiguity over where executive authority lies, and the roles would blur if both the president and CEO are well paid senior figures,” a Board source said.

Supporters reject that interpretation. They argue that “remuneration would not alter the president’s constitutional responsibilities”. The president would “continue to lead the community, chair the organisation and help set policy, while the chief executive would remain responsible for its professional management”.

The debate therefore comes down to two different conceptions of the presidency. One side sees the unpaid office as an important expression of voluntary communal leadership, protecting the president’s independence and maintaining a clear distinction between elected representatives and professional staff.

The other sees the demands of the modern presidency as so extensive that requiring the office-holder to serve without pay risks excluding capable candidates who cannot afford the financial sacrifice.

With Rosenberg’s term entering its third and final year, and the possibility of a second term understood to be open, the question is likely to remain significant as the Board considers the future shape of its leadership.

A spokesperson for the Board said: “Our honorary officers are considering how to make the presidency more accessible to a wider range of people. We want the best candidates from across the community, and are concerned that the current demands of the role mean that it is accessible only to those who have sufficient personal wealth to either retire or take an effective multi-year sabbatical from their job.”

The spokesperson added that in the last few years the “demands of the role have only expanded, with rising levels of antisemitism and ongoing conflict in the Middle East, and in a social media age where rapid responses are often required. This triennium, we have also seen a significant expansion in presidential visits to communities across the UK, media appearances, and high-level political engagement. This means that the role is now effectively a full-time – or more than full-time – post and this seems likely to continue under future presidencies as well.”