Board of Deputies president Phil Rosenberg has confirmed he will seek re-election for a second three-year term in May.
The PR consultant was believed to be the youngest leader in the organisation’s history when he was elected two years ago at the age of 38.
Rosenberg informed deputies of his decision to stand at Sunday’s plenary meeting and also made his first public comments on an emerging debate over whether the presidency should in future be paid.
He told deputies that the position had become “effectively a full time – or more than full time – role” and he was ‘just about managing” through the support of family and friends.
As reported last week, the JC understands that remuneration of around £100,000 to £150,000 a year for the role has been discussed within Board circles.
In written Q and A’s presented to deputies, Rosenberg – who recently celebrated the birth of his first child – said officers were 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.”
He said he had often heard people say: “I couldn’t afford to be president/an honorary officer”.
The Board’s lawyers, he revealed, had previously been commissioned under his predecessor, Marie van der Zyl, to look at whether a stipend or some kind of compensation could be paid to the president.
“Since that time, 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,” he said.
“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.
“Personally, I am currently just-about managing with the occasional pieces of consultancy
work, drawing on savings, and support (financial, emotional, and, in gifts of time) from family
and friends.”
He believed it “harmful for the organisation, and the community as a whole, that the role is seen to be inaccessible to many people who would otherwise be worthy candidates. In my experience, many people are quite surprised to learn that the position is not already compensated in some way, given the obvious demands of the role.”
Similar challenges applied to a lesser extent to other honorary officers, he added. “It will ultimately be for deputies to take a view, but I can certainly see the case for a wider accessibility scheme, in the same way that local councillors receive an allowance.”
Work was continuing on a proposal to present to deputies, he said.
Meanwhile, a move to supplement the five honorary officers with two additional trustees to run the organisation’s charitable arm has been postponed.
Leaders explained that in cases when an organisation has both charitable and non-charitable arms, the Charity Commission was looking for a clear distinction between them, and additional trustees would be a way to show that. These trustees would be appointed, rather than elected, as the five honorary officers are.
But Rosenberg told deputies ahead of the meeting, where a vote had been due to take place, that in view of the number of amendments, the resolution would be deferred to another time.
A previous move by the Board to expand the trustees from five to 11 during van der Zyl’s presidency failed after lengthy debate.
To get more from community, click here to sign up for our free community newsletter.