What if we're wrong?

I've been professionally involved in financial markets for nearly 30 years, and one thing the markets teach is that no matter how good your models are, how careful your analysis is, how thorough your research, or how extensive your experience, your decisions are still going to be wrong a significant percentage of the time. So when making a decision, it pays to ask, "What if I'm wrong?".

That's the question I've been thinking about in connection with the cost of purchasing a site and constructing a new home for GRS, and specifically regarding the "Affordable vs. Transformational" question I discussed last week.

What if we go the "Affordable" route, and that turns out to have been the wrong decision-that is, we achieve very strong membership growth, and the size limitations of the new building start to act as constraints? There will be some, perhaps, awkward decisions-do we start additional sessions of our school on other days or times? Do we adopt the policies of some other synagogues on the High Holy Days, and either rent larger space for the services or hold consecutive services, one half of the congregation at a time? Do we even limit membership? Yet, needing to deal with such issues implies that GRS is financially secure, both from having preserved capital by purchasing the affordable site and by generating sufficient revenue from membership to support our operations. It may be that we even generate enough income to fund new programs to benefit our children and youth, our membership at large, and the community.

What if we go the "Transformational" route and we're wrong-that is, we scale our purchase and construction plans to a membership level that we don't achieve? GRS might become "house poor"-that is, we have a wonderful building, but the congregation is strained to support it. On the one hand, the new building might attract faster growth and perhaps some major donations; on the other hand, the expense load might act as a constraint.

When I think about it this way, I lean towards the Affordable. If we're wrong, the issues created by going the Affordable route are tolerable-the issues created by going the Transformational route are corrosive.

I hasten to point out that the real world will likely intrude to make the decision messy. We could well end up considering a property that is affordable with a stretch or run into unanticipated construction costs, for example. (And, we are perfectly capable of making mistakes other than the one described here!)

Neither the Site Search Committee nor the Board will make site and construction decisions alone or in a vacuum. All members can influence the route GRS chooses.  To the maximum extent possible, we seek consensus on this very big decision. What do you think? How do you think about the risks of either route? Which way do you lean? Please email me at robertdbirnbaum@gmail.com with your thoughts, comments, and questions, or join the congregational dialog by posting your comments at the President's blog on the GRS website here.