The Baltimore Jewish Council adopted the policy of the National Jewish Community Relations Council (NJCRAC) on affirmative action. At this time, the BJC supported affirmative action in compensatory education, job training, recruitment, reviews of job and admissions requirements, as well as the basing of merit and qualifications on cultural, social, and economic backgrounds and not just test scores; it opposed quotas. This policy was approved on January 11, 1996. The Metropolitan Issues Committee drafted another statement to support affirmative action, which was then approved by the BJC Board (Addendum I).

This statement also supported affirmative action, placing greater emphasis on supporting education and job counseling, while continuing opposition towards quotas. This policy was adopted on November 4, 1998.

Addendum I

Resolution On Race, Affirmative Action And Higher Education

Approved by Baltimore Jewish Council Board of Directors November 4, 1998

The American Jewish community is deeply committed to the principle of a just society, a concept that is at the very core of Jewish tradition. This tradition also encourages us to seek a society in which diverse groups and individuals can live in harmony while respecting each others’ beliefs, lifestyles and ethnic identities. Only in such a society can our security and the well-being of others be assured. In turn, we believe that it is the responsibility of public officials to provide equal educational opportunities for an increasingly diverse student population.

It is within this context, therefore, that the Baltimore Jewish Council (BJC) reaffirms its support of affirmative action programs , most notably in the form of compensatory education and job counseling, intensive recruitment of members of disadvantaged groups, ongoing emphasis on bias-free admissions and employment requirements, and racial preferences designed to achieve diversity and inclusion as permitted by law.

We recognize the need for numerical data and statistical procedures to measure and help assure the effectiveness of affirmative action programs. Nevertheless, the BJC remains opposed to quotas, which, we believe, are inconsistent with the principle of nondiscrimination as a goal of equal opportunity.

Finally, in light of the divisiveness of this issue, we support efforts by state and local officials to come to terms with the goals stated above.

The Baltimore Jewish Council voted to oppose assisted suicide because Jewish Law expressly forbids it.

This policy was approved on February 26, 1997. The Executive Committee reaffirmed this position in the spring of 2015.

The Baltimore Jewish Council approved a resolution on statewide campaign finance reform that includes, among other things, support for voluntary funding for state legislative candidates, qualifying contributions and soft money limits (Addendum II).

The resolution was adopted on September 28, 1999.

Addendum II

Resolution On Statewide Campaign Finance Reform

Approved by Baltimore Jewish Council Board of Directors September 28, 1999

The Baltimore Jewish Council has long believed that honest and efficient government is vital to the health of a free society. We join with many others in expressing our concern over the increasing threat that unrestrained political fundraising is posing to the legitimacy of our public institutions – both in appearance and fact.

We recognize that campaign funding is a component of free speech. However, we believe that the best way to allow candidates to meet their funding needs while still allowing constitutionally-protected political speech is to institute a system of voluntary public campaign financing. We therefore call on the state of Maryland to create a “clean money campaign reform” system that includes the following elements:

Voluntary public funding for state legislative candidates. Candidates for the state legislature would have access to public funds in their primary and general election campaigns in sufficient quantities to make them competitive with privately funded candidates.
Qualifying contributions. So as to ensure that only serious candidates would have access to taxpayer-provided campaign funds, candidates would have to raise a minimum number of contributions in their legislative district.
Limited private or political transfer contributions. Once a candidate accepts public money, he or she may only raise a limited amount of private contributions, up to a specific spending limit.
Limited matching money. Those publicly-financed candidates who are significantly outspent by an opponent would be eligible to receive supplemental funds up to a predetermined cap.
“Soft money” limits. Some reasonable limits would be placed on unregulated “soft money” contributions to political action committees.

The Baltimore Jewish Council believes that this proposal holds the potential to insulate politicians from the corrupting influence of those political contributors whose concerns are not those of the public as a whole. We call on the state legislature to implement this program, and restore public trust in the political process upon which we all depend for a safe and thriving democracy.

Addendum III

As a Jewish organization, devoted to pursuing the values of equality and social justice, the Baltimore Jewish Council has serious concerns about the imposition of the death penalty.

The Rabbis, through antiquity, have urged extreme caution in the prosecution of capital cases – an admonition we take seriously. Under Jewish law, the death penalty was not to be inflicted because of hatred for the offender, but was to educate people about the severity of the offenses and deter future offenses. Furthermore, it was to be imposed only after satisfying stringent requirements in order to protect the life of the innocent, a paramount value in Judaism. For instance, Talmudic law warns that culpability must be established beyond the shadow of a doubt [Makkot 7b] and that even the most convincing circumstantial evidence is not enough to allow the death penalty [Sanh. 37b]. Additionally it rejects the testimony of any witness with a material interest in the case, such as the exchange of a lesser sentence for their testimony [Sanh. 21 23b] and insists that to administer a death penalty there must have been a clear warning immediately before the assault in order to assure that the perpetrator was fully aware of his actions [Sanh. 80b, 40b]. The take away is clear. As long as there is any uncertainty, capital punishment is not appropriate.

These requirements were to apply only to Jewish societies governed by Jewish law, and we do not propose that they be applied literally to a secular criminal justice system in modern times. However, the values inherent in them are sensible guideposts to the question of capital punishment today.

Governor Martin O’Malley acknowledged some of these most basic concerns about capital punishment as performed in the state of Maryland – that there may be risk of executing the innocent in error, and concerns of racial and jurisdictional inequities – and the General Assembly thereupon established the Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment and tasked it to study all aspects of the issue.

The State of Maryland moved admirably in response to the report with the passage in 2009 of the current language in Maryland statute 2-202, limiting capital punishment to cases with direct DNA evidence and video record of the event or the confession, rather than relying on inherently fallible eyewitness evidence. We applaud the State for instituting these important safeguards.

We have deep regard for the families of the victims of heinous crimes and the need to see justice done in the name of their loved ones. We trust that they can be comforted in their loss and achieve the closure they need, secure in the knowledge that the State of Maryland strives to be meticulous in the application of justice.

Judaism values life so highly, we insist on a criminal justice system that practices the utmost caution in carrying out the ultimate penalty.

This position was approved by Baltimore Jewish Council Board of Directors on November 8, 2012.

The Maryland Can Do Better for Children Campaign of Advocates for Children and Youth was endorsed by the Board. Maryland has one of the largest gaps between wealth and child well-being in America and the campaign offers specific solutions to this longstanding problem.

This position was adopted on September 11, 2008.

The Baltimore Jewish Council recognizes that child abuse and neglect exists not only in society-at-large, but in the Jewish community as well. Silence on this issue is intolerable.

We believe that the protection of our children must be one of our community’s highest priorities. We strongly believe that prevention, early identification and treatment are extremely important and should be the focus of our efforts on this topic. We encourage the judicial and legislative systems, government and social services agencies at all levels of government, as well as educational institutions and synagogues to continue to develop programs to prevent abuse, identify victims and support children and adolescents with regard to this issue.

Abusers thrive in an environment where discussion of this topic is silenced and reporting and punishment are discouraged. That must not be allowed to happen. We must develop the righteous indignation to fully protect our children by sending a clear message that those who molest or abuse children will be reported to the authorities, arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

When abuse and neglect affect children who are unable to protect or remove themselves from harm, the need for immediate intervention outweighs concerns about community and family preservation. Child abuse reporting laws have proven, since their widespread adoption in the 1980’s and 1990’s, to be of tremendous value in protecting children from harm. Maryland’s reporting laws should be both strengthened and more clearly defined, and penalties should be enacted for professionals who fail to report as required. As we have stated previously, in the Baltimore Jewish Council’s Domestic Violence Policy first approved in 1994, we support legislation that would limit the current broad exemption on reporting child abuse – sexual or otherwise – by members of the clergy, except in the narrowest circumstances when religious law requires confidentiality during penitential spiritual counseling. For those who commit sexual crimes against children, or protect those who do, there must be no sanctuary.

As a community, we must provide the support necessary for those families which are torn apart by abuse, rather than shun and castigate those who report. Because of the shame and fear experienced by children and adolescence that have been traumatized, prompt disclosure must be the responsibility of the adult not the children. The cycle of witness intimidation of those who report abuse must end now and our community must cooperate with legal authorities when they become involved. We encourage our own Jewish institutions to support the families and children who have been abused and to stand up against abuse and those who discourage reporting. We must raise the community’s awareness level by asking our Jewish leaders to write and speak out against abuse and neglect in a forthright and unequivocal manner.

We must teach our parents and educators how to speak to their children about personal privacy, how to listen and provide support when allegation arises and how to recognize the common behavioral signs and symptoms of abuse in children and adolescents even when verbal disclosure has not been made. This can easily be done in a modest, confidential and appropriate manner for all within our Jewish community.

This issue is everyone’s issue: the family, the school, the community at large and the Jewish community. Abusers are far more likely to be family members or neighbors, rather than educators or clergy. This is not to say that schools, synagogues, camps, and youth serving organizations should not address this matter; rather to note that simply dealing with it in the limited scope of school will not eradicate the scourge of abuse.

We believe that policies which provide and support funding for early identification, prevention and treatment are the best utilization of resources to address this issue.

There is no more sacred obligation than protecting the children entrusted to our care.

This position was approved on November 13, 2008.

The Baltimore Jewish Council supports measures to assure that adequate childcare is available for all families, for raising children is an important purpose of humankind. We support provisions for additional resources for childcare for all children and families who need such care and for financial assistance to families who need child care support. This is both a matter of moral urgency and a financially sound approach to support parents to seek gainful employment. At the same time, we value of measures which support those parents who remain at home to raise their children, and which make that a financially viable option.

Updated February, 2019

The Baltimore Jewish Council believes that all parents should strive to financially support their children. Child support obligations should be reflective of parents’ actual income. Changes in circumstances in income or ability to meet the obligations of a child support order should result in a change to a child support obligation. The financial support obligations should not interfere with a parent/child relationship, and such relationships should be fostered between a child and each parent. The Baltimore Jewish Council supports any educational or vocational training or other similar opportunities that can assist parents in meeting child support obligations.

Approved by the BJC Board of Directors, February 28, 2019

Policy Statement on Deceptive Proselytizing Approved by the Baltimore Jewish Council Board of Directors January 30, 2014.

The Baltimore Jewish Council is open and inclusive of all branches of Judaism. However, Jewish people who accept Jesus as their savior, calling themselves “Messianic Jews” or “Hebrew Christians” actually have adopted a religion that is not Judaism, and have removed themselves from the Jewish community.

For centuries, attempts have been made to convert the Jewish people to Christianity, and the Jewish community has always resisted these attempts. In that vein, it is disconcerting that these “Messianic Jews” or “Hebrew Christians” have created a false and misleading setting that purports to allow Jews to retain their Jewish identity while at the same time embracing Jesus. That simply is not truthful, and is disrespectful of Judaism and the proud heritage of the Jewish people.

The Baltimore Jewish Council condemns these tactics and views these misrepresentations as objectionable and socially unacceptable.

The effort to address the problem of domestic abuse remains a profound challenge for the organized Jewish community, as well as for our many coalition partners. We encourage the courts, law-enforcement agencies, legislatures and social service agencies, to develop strategies, which are sensitive to our community’s concerns, to combat domestic violence and to protect all victims of domestic abuse. In our own community, we pledge to work with CHANA and other interested organizations such as Hadassah, the National Council of Jewish Women, and Jewish Women International, as well as our coalition partners in other faiths, for more education, outreach and advocacy to combat domestic abuse in all its forms. (Addendum IV)

Addendum IV

Resolution on Domestic Abuse

Approved by Baltimore Jewish Council Board of Directors

November 11, 2004

“Domestic abuse in the Jewish community has no boundaries; it affects all types of relationships, all socio-economic classes, all ages and all spectrums of religious and cultural life. The range of identified behaviors of abuse is broad and includes sexual, verbal, psychological, physical, and financial abuse.”

– Findings of “A Portrait of Domestic Abuse in the Jewish Community: Key Findings of the National and Chicagoland Needs Assessments, Jewish Women International, May 2004

The effort to address the problem of domestic abuse remains a profound challenge for the organized Jewish community, as well as for our many coalition partners. Jewish law and tradition generally place a high value on family preservation. However, we are concerned that this value sometimes has given rise to silence, denial and shame within our community, which have proven to be serious obstacles to increasing awareness and knowledge of the issue, and treatment and counseling for those in need of it. We support the work of agencies such as CHANA (Counseling, Helpline & Aid Network for Abused Women) both to provide services to victims of abuse and to educate the broader Jewish community about the extent of the problem in our midst.

We are also aware of the role that domestic violence plays in the lives of women trying to move from poverty to self-sufficiency. We encourage the courts, law-enforcement agencies, legislatures and social service agencies, to develop strategies, which are sensitive to our community’s concerns, to combat domestic violence and to protect all victims of domestic abuse.

We call for government policies and funding that support referrals to counseling and supportive services – and an option to provide transitional assistance to battered immigrant women and children who are fleeing domestic violence.

We encourage law enforcement agencies to prosecute perpetrators of violence. However, we recognize that there are circumstances when requiring victims to testify would be against their best interests, and the mere existence of compelled spousal testimony laws can discourage some victims from reporting their abuse in the first place in order to begin the process of removing themselves from harm. In such cases when the need to prosecute perpetrators of violent crime conflicts with the health and safety needs of victims, we side with the victims. Therefore we would oppose any effort to change the current law regarding compelled spousal testimony.

When abuse and neglect affect children, who are unable to protect or remove themselves from harm, we believe the need for immediate intervention outweighs concerns about family preservation. Appropriately tailored child abuse reporting laws have proven, since their widespread adoption in the 1980s and 1990s, to be of tremendous value in protecting children from harm Maryland’s reporting laws should be strengthened but clearly defined, and penalties should be enacted for professionals who fail to report as required. We support legislation that would limit the current broad exemption on reporting child abuse – sexual or otherwise – by members of the clergy, except in the narrowest circumstances when religious law requires confidentiality during penitential spiritual counseling. For those who commit sexual crimes against children, or protect those who do, there must be no sanctuary.

Because of the unique pathology of child sexual abuse, the documented likelihood of repeat offenses, and the need to allow parents to protect their children, we support the concept of public reporting of sexual predators, as embodied in statutes known as “Megan’s Laws.” However, we recognize that errors in reporting, and vigilantism are troubling potential byproducts of these laws. We call for the state to regularly update these lists to ensure for accuracy, and to work with community associations to better educate the public to avoid vigilantism.

In our own community, we pledge to work with CHANA and other interested organizations such as Hadassah, the National Council of Jewish Women, and Jewish Women International, as well as our coalition partners in other faiths, for more education, outreach and advocacy to combat domestic abuse in all its forms.

A key to the values of Judaism is education. Jewish immigrants realized the importance of public education as a way to become integrated in American secular society. The Jewish community supports public and non-public education at all levels.

The Baltimore Jewish Council supports a well-funded public education system. The Council also believes that appropriately crafted public funding to private and parochial schools must be provided in a constitutionally permissible manner.

Accountability and Internal Reform

The Baltimore Jewish Council believes Accountability and Internal Reform can only be accomplished by a reform of the funding mechanism. Reform should address learning materials and the entire school culture, including the following: Educators, administrators, and parents should produce outcomes that fulfill state requirements and develop assessment strategies; Local schools should be able to make their own instructional and budgetary decisions; There should be established a public-school accreditation program with “school-specific” goals.

The reform recommendations of the Educational Task Force were approved on November 18, 1991.

Charter Schools

The Baltimore Jewish Council approved a statement on public charter schools that included several recommendations. First, the development of charter schools should be accompanied by increased efforts to improve existing public schools. Charter schools should strictly observe the constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state. Charter schools and students should be required to achieve educational performance standards and should be evaluated on a regular basis. Charter schools’ policies should not discriminate against students and employees.

The policy statement was approved on November 10, 1999. (Addendum V)

Addendum V

Statement on Public Charter Schools

Approved by Baltimore Jewish Council Board of Directors

November 10, 1999

The Baltimore Jewish Council is firmly committed to excellence and equality in public education and supports measures aimed at improving the quality of all public schools. The BJC believes the vast majority of American children will continue to be educated in the public-school system. Public charter schools may prove to be an effective tool for the improvement of the public education system, if they provide families, particularly those in the nation’s urban centers, with another option in attaining quality education for their children within the public-school system. However, the Council is profoundly concerned that charter schools not violate the constitutional separation of church and state. The crucial role the public-school system has historically played in teaching America’s children core democratic values and appreciation for pluralism must be preserved. To that end, the Baltimore Jewish Council recommends that all steps be taken to ensure that:

1. the development of charter schools is accompanied by increased efforts to improve existing public schools, and that the performance and funding of public schools are not diminished in any way by the creation or maintenance of charter schools;

2. charter schools strictly observe the constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state so that public funds will not be spent on sectarian institutions overtly or through subterfuge. While charter schools may teach about religion objectively, they must not teach religion;

3. charter schools and students are required to achieve educational performance standards, although charter schools should retain freedom to adopt individual curricula to achieve such standards;

4. charter schools, individually and collectively, are reviewed on a regular basis to evaluate their educational and fiscal performance, and to assess the impact they have on the public-school system, with particular attention on reviewing the possible adoption of those innovations in other public schools;

5. charter schools’ admissions, retention and employment policies do not discriminate against students or employees based on who they are, what they believe or where they come from; charter schools charge no tuition; and are held to the same health and safety standards as other public schools; and

6. adequately funded monitoring systems and appropriate oversight bodies are put in place to review the overall performance of charter schools and ensure that church-state violations, educational failures, discrimination, fiscal irresponsibility and other problems do not go undetected in charter schools.

School Choice and Public Funding of Non-Public Schools

The Baltimore Jewish Council is committed to public education and supports school choice which may include scholarships for low income students to attend nonpublic schools, and open enrollment across school districts. In all cases, the Baltimore Jewish Council encourages careful monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with the law and responsible use of public funding.

The Baltimore Jewish Council supports funding to non-public schools for certain ancillary services and instruction, provided that such services are entirely non-sectarian. These services may include textbooks, technology, software, energy and infrastructure assistance, library aid and transportation.

The Baltimore Jewish Council supports tax credits that provide constitutionally permissible financial support to families. Tax credits should not diminish current funding of public schools.

Course Requirements in Public Schools

The Baltimore Jewish Council opposes legislation that would prohibit the State Board of Education or a County Board of Education from requiring a student to enroll in certain courses that contain subject matter that conflicts with the religious beliefs of the student or their parents.

This policy was adopted on March 4, 1996.

Funding Equity

The Baltimore Jewish Council supports funding equity to close the gap between wealthy and lower income school districts. Funding equity includes the following: more aid to low wealth school districts; a standard within all jurisdictions for a minimum spending amount per student that is sufficient for basic needs; the investigation of other sources of revenue besides property taxes to provide for education; an increase of statewide minimum salary requirements to attract and retain high quality teachers; and the creation of greater equity in pension and social security funding from the state.

The funding equity recommendation of the Educational Task Force was approved on November 18, 1991.

In 2001, the Baltimore Jewish Council voted to support the recommendations of the Thornton Commission on K-12 public education funding.

Approved by the BJC Board of Directors, Feb. 28, 2019

Jewish law compels us to ensure just treatment of employees by employers.

Currently, many employees in America do not have any form of paid sick leave. A significant percentage of this population is comprised of low-wage employees who often have to make the difficult choice of whether to put food on their table or care for themselves or a sick family member. Moreover, when employees, especially food service workers, come to work sick, or send a sick child to school, it creates public health problems.

Paid sick leave is fair and essential to maintaining a healthy workplace and protecting public health.

The Baltimore Jewish Council supports laws, policies, and employment practices that allow employees to meet both family and work responsibilities. Therefore, we support the concept of paid family leave and other common-sense public health legislation that provides for paid sick days for employees to care for themselves or a family member. At the same time, we must remain sensitive to the needs of employers.

Updated February, 2019

The Baltimore Jewish Council supports legislation that allows part-time workers who are contributing to the unemployment insurance fund to be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

This policy was approved on December 20, 2007.

As approved by the Baltimore Jewish Council Board of Directors November 12, 2009

In 1999 the Maryland General Assembly approved legislation facilitating the deregulation of the electric utility industry. This was designed to create competition in the marketplace and thereby reduce electricity rates. Also, Maryland continues to consume more electricity than it can produce. Lawmakers have introduced several bills calling for the reregulation of Maryland’s electric utilities.

The Baltimore Jewish Council remains deeply concerned about the effect of the high cost of energy on populations served by state and local governments and communal organizations; and, in keeping with the Talmudic commandment, “Open your hand to the poor and needy” (Deuteronomy 15:7-8), Jewish Community Services (JCS), an agency of THE ASSOCIATED: Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore, has recently disbursed over $51,000 to 110 households between March and August 2009. This expenditure was directly attributable to the need to subsidize increased energy costs. Throughout Maryland, local utilities, legislators and the media have recorded, at record numbers, reports of individuals having to choose between keeping warm and putting food on the table. We believe this is an unacceptable choice.

Our dependence upon oil, especially foreign oil, not only endangers the environment, but also affects our national and local economies and our national energy security. This leaves the United States vulnerable to hostile countries and regimes and threatens our historic support for Israel. Conversely, that fact influences the debate in a different direction; one which would endorse higher prices.

As an organized community that is involved in a wide range of social issues, the Baltimore Jewish Council believes that any reregulation legislation must reflect the following criteria:

recognizes the dependence of the United States and other countries on foreign oil and requires formal consumer education programs in order to promote energy efficiency and conservation;
maintains the authority of the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) to regulate electric utility companies and respective retail energy markets in the best interests of the public, including where and when new power plants, relying on varied energy sources, are constructed;
directs the PSC to reinstitute the Integrative Resource Planning (IRP) process, in order to meet Maryland’s short- and long- term energy needs. The PSC planning process must address the appropriate mix of efficient resources including transmission, capital upgrades, conservation efforts and new power generation;
directs that capacity charges must remain committed and used only for purposes for which they are being collected;/li>
judges all environmental and energy initiatives through the twin lenses of science and efficiency, as well as the lens of environmental justice, to ensure that we do not unduly burden our lower-income or vulnerable neighbors. Environmental justice is the fair and meaningful involvement of all people with respect to the development and implementation of environmental law;
reduces volatility and creates market stability through retail choice (e.g. choice of energy provider), in order to provide stable service at reasonable prices; consumer education regarding providers should be promoted;
considers service reliability, long-term economic stability, and sustainable environmental initiatives, including alternative energy sources. Planning for the future is essential to protect all Marylanders from blackouts and rising prices;
Finally, beyond state legislation, the BJC recognizes the importance of addressing energy policy at the national level since a significant percentage of Maryland’s electricity is secured from other states. Since individual state laws have limited impact on environmental issues, a strong national energy policy is required, including federal mandates for air quality, pollution and operation of the power grid.

Protecting and preserving the environment is a Jewish value rooted deep in our traditions and sacred texts. Our calendar and holidays track the cycles of nature. Our holy books bid us to preserve and protect G-d’s creations. Jewish law teaches us to avoid destruction and waste of natural and human-made resources (bal tashchit). The Talmud (Shabbat 67b) stipulates that in creating light, one must use the available technology that burns the cleanest and uses the least oil. Our observance of Shabbat is cited as an environmental ethic unto itself, a fortification against contemporary norms that can lead to excess and exploitation.

Modern environmental issues echo our Biblical teachings: Upon creating Adam and Eve, G-d led them around the garden, showing them its magnificence. Then God said to them: See my handiwork, how fine and excellent it is. All this that I created is here before you. Tend to it well. Do not corrupt or destroy it, for if you do, there will be no one after you to make it right again. (Ecclesiates Rabbah)

Environmental initiatives and policies should model/express the value of “tzedek tzedek tirdof”; the pursuit of justice in a righteous manner. This requires environmental policies that do not disproportionately burden the poor and that preserve the health and robustness of nature; that are grounded in sound science, and engage the participation of government, industry, institutions, and individuals. Our social justice value of Tikkun Olam – “the healing of the world,” urges us to make the environment a priority of and a shared responsibility within our community.

Sustainability is also a means for continuing to strive to meet high standards of organizational operations and behaviors both within and beyond the Jewish community, and we support these efforts to increase participation and expansion of environmentally-conscious practices such as:

Climate Action, Sea Level Rise, and Resilience:

Climate Change: support programs that promote the prevention, mitigation, and adaptation of strategies in-line with scientific studies related to the large-scale issues of climate change.
Resilient Communities: support the design, planning, enhancement and building of communities and infrastructure in ways to address vulnerabilities related to climate change and other threats to prosperity and well-being.
Air pollution reduction: support measures to help the State meet and exceed its Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act goals and, subject to appropriate cost-benefit analyses, protect Maryland residents from health-degrading/toxic air pollution by lowering climate-warming emissions, such as carbon dioxide and methane, and reducing emissions of dangerous sulfur dioxide, smog-forming nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and mercury.
Reduction of Energy Consumption: support goals that require continued improvements in the energy efficiency of cars, trucks, and residential and commercial buildings.
Clean Energy: support as a means for reducing carbon emissions, avoiding degrading land and water in the extraction process, avoiding the depletion of natural resources and securing energy independence.

Environmental Priorities

Clean Water, Chesapeake Bay, and Watershed Restoration: support of programs and measures for erosion control, storm water mitigation, and best practices for land use to restore health to our land and waterways.
Waste Prevention and Reduction: support increased participation in recycling and composting programs, reduction of the waste stream, design of products and materials that minimize waste, and encouragement of zero waste practices.
Air pollution reduction: support measures to produce effective results from the Maryland Healthy Air Act to curb particulate and gas emissions that contribute to health and water degradation.
Environmental Literacy & Awareness: support of programs that integrate environmental literacy in informal as well as formal educational and professional development settings as an integral process in building stewardship of our Earth.
Reduction of Energy Consumption: support and embrace goals such as the EmPOWER Maryland Energy Efficiency Act to reduce our energy consumption 15% by 2015 and support of programs that achieve these metrics.
Green/Sustainable Building Practices: support of “best management practices” for Agriculture, Industrial, and Real Estate Development that encourage sustainable design and construction, diversion of waste/debris from landfills, reuse/recycling of materials, low VOC materials, and alternative energy sourcing.
Mass and Alternative Transit infrastructure expansion/improvements: support efforts to increase accessibility, efficiency and reduce carbon emissions of this infrastructure.
Environmental Justice:
Support environmental programs and laws that promote the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income
Support programs that protect vulnerable communities who are all too often subject to the disproportionate burden of pollution and contamination.
Support of incentives and job opportunities for low to moderate income residents in conservation, waste and energy reduction efforts for individual households, non-profits, and businesses.
Work in conjunction with Jewish and other non-profit groups and organizations to better address funding needs to help our non-profits participate in environmental and energy related programs and projects.

This position was approved by the Baltimore Jewish Council Board of Directors on January 28, 2020.

Our dependence upon oil, especially foreign oil, not only endangers our environment, it also affects our economy and our national energy security. As it is not a sustainable energy resource, our growing dependence on foreign oil leaves the United States vulnerable to hostile countries and regimes and threatens our historic support for Israel.

In 2004 the Maryland Justice Coalition asked the Council for support of a number of initiatives aimed at easing the re-integration of ex-offenders back into society. At its November 11, 2004, Board meeting, the Council adopted the following positions:

The BJC supports legislation that would make food stamps available to all who qualify, regardless of their criminal history or marital status. Maryland currently denies food stamps to drug felons who are not custodial parents.

The BJC supports legislation that would institute a “debt-leveraging” program that would relieve past child support arrearages of qualifying low-income non-custodial parents who pay their current obligations, and satisfactorily complete other requirements, including community-based parenting programs.

The BJC takes no position on legislation that would restore voting rights to all ex-offenders immediately upon their release from prison. Current law allows voting rights restoration to some felons after completion of their entire sentence, including parole, community service, fines and restitution.

In 2015 The Baltimore Jewish Council was asked by several coalition partners to form a position on criminal expungement. At its November 5, 2015 Board meeting, the Council adopted the follow posistion:

As a Jewish organization devoted to pursuing the values of equality and social justice as well as redemption and forgiveness, the Baltimore Jewish Council believes that minor legal transgressions should not result in a lifetime of punishment. Therefore, the BJC believes the Maryland General Assembly should provide for the expungement and shielding of minor criminal convictions, particularly for non-violent youthful indiscretions.*

*The above is a general statement of policy and does not represent support for any specific item of legislation until reviewed and endorsed by the BJC.

We support the goal of enhancing partnerships between government and religious communities, which share a common mission: to improve the condition of individuals and communities at risk, and pursue what the Jewish tradition calls tikkun olam, the repair of the world.

However, in our long partnership with government to solve social problems, we have been mindful of the importance of adhering to the separation of church and state, and manifesting our religious values without seeking to impose our beliefs on others. We call for a series of standards and restrictions to be upheld in any program that would direct taxpayer funds to religious organizations. (Addendum VII)

Addendum VII

Statement on Faith-Based Initiatives

Approved by Baltimore Jewish Council Board of Directors

September 18, 2003

Introduction

In the past several years, the concept of the “Faith-Based Initiative” has gained increased currency. Both President George W. Bush and Maryland Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. have vowed to enhance the partnership between government and religiously-affiliated service providers. One stated goal of these initiatives has been “to get organizations on the front lines of America’s social welfare challenges even more involved in addressing these needs.” Another has been to eliminate barriers that “sharply restrict… the equal opportunity for faith-based charities to seek and receive Federal support to serve their communities.”

One major source of confusion about Faith-Based Initiatives has been the definition itself: What exactly is a faith-based organization? All of the several dozen educational, cultural and human service agencies of The ASSOCIATED: Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore, for example, are faith-based, in the sense that they are motivated by the values and traditions of our faith. There is an important distinction, however, between agencies such as these, which are not “pervasively sectarian,” as the courts have defined it, and religious organizations such as churches, synagogues and mosques, whose primary concern is the propagation of their faith.

We agree that there are segments of the population in need of vital services who may only be reached by certain community and faith-based agencies that are closely attuned to the needs of their neighborhoods. Experience has proven that some agencies are better at transforming lives when they are motivated by religious faith.

However, in our long partnership with government to solve social problems, we have been mindful of the importance of adhering to the separation of church and state, and manifesting our religious values without seeking to impose our beliefs on others. We have created nonreligious 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations to fulfill the social obligations of our faith.

This separation we believe protects against the kinds of church-state problems that have plagued similar programs in other states. It also ensures that houses of worship need not become subject to intrusion into their religious affairs by agents of government.

We support the goal of enhancing partnerships between government and religious communities, which share a common mission: to improve the condition of individuals and communities at risk, and pursue what the Jewish tradition calls tikkun olam, the repair of the world. We believe that partnership can work best within the following guidelines:

• In order for clients to avoid religious coercion, or the appearance of it, a secular alternative to a religious provider must be available. The simplest way to ensure that is to require faith-based providers to establish separate non-religious institutions to provide government-funded services. In fact, because the whole arena of government funding for religious organizations is fraught with constitutional risks, specific monitoring mechanisms must be put in place. The religious liberty of clients is at stake when the state begins to fund pervasively religious providers. The first step in avoiding some of these violations should be to require the recipient of government funds to establish an independent non-religious entity, such as a 501(c)(3) corporation.
• All existing government performance and compliance standards must be required of faith- and community-based organizations. Permitting some providers to ignore regulations that are intended to ensure safety, quality and accountability in the use of taxpayer dollars would open the door to government-sanctioned fraud and abuse, and would unfairly discriminate against those who do not qualify as faith- or community-based organizations.
• Faith-based services must not be allowed to admit clients to their programs based on their religion. Government-funded social service programs must serve all people eligible for those services and recipients must have access to all of the benefits of the program regardless of individual religious belief.
• Providers must not be permitted to require participation in a religious activity as a condition of receiving taxpayer-funded services. It goes to the heart of the separation of church and state that government must not support religious coercion in any form.
• We oppose the use of government-funded vouchers at religious institutions. With taxpayer money must come accountability, and allowing clients to use state vouchers anywhere they please will prevent that accountability. The first casualties will be the quality of services funded by the government, and the separation of church and state. At the same time, switching from the current grant system to vouchers will destroy the ability of agencies to efficiently plan and budget for the provision of services.
• Religious institutions must be held to the same employment regulations as others, with limited exceptions. If faith-based initiatives are about giving “equal treatment” to religious organizations, then existing anti-discrimination laws must be applied equally to all who seek taxpayer dollars. For instance, government funds must not be spent on organizations permitted to post a job notice that says “No Catholics, Muslims or Jews need apply.” We do believe, however, that religious organizations should be permitted to hire executive-level or top management staff who have a religious connection to the community that is sponsoring and partially funding the program.
• We are wary of the use of government funds for the physical construction of buildings owned by religious organizations. But such funding could be acceptable so long as the money is specifically earmarked for use in non-religious programming. State “bond bills” (capital grants) for faith-based organizations currently include the following language, which we feel should be adapted for any grant of capital funds to similar entities:
• “No portion of the proceeds of the loan or any of the matching funds may be used for the furtherance of sectarian religious instruction, or in connection with the design, acquisition, or construction of any building used or to be used as a place of sectarian religious worship or instruction, or in connection with any program or department of divinity for any religious denomination.”
• One important exception to this principle is disaster relief. We believe that when government provides support to private institutions to help them recover from a natural disaster, or other similar relief efforts, these funds should be made available to secular and religious institutions on the same basis.
• Federal housing policy allows people who live permanently in facilities subsidized with public funds to have religiously based programming, including kosher meals and the celebration of religious holidays. We support this longstanding government policy that has accepted religious accommodations in long-term care facilities, consistent with the First Amendment rights of residents to religious worship.
• Some providers, particularly smaller ones with limited experience, do not have the proficiency or management skills to deliver services with public dollars. We believe that limited additional supports to expand the capacity of community organizations to serve people in need will only accrue to the benefit of neighborhoods and society. Since social service dollars are scarce, however, diversions from direct service funds should be avoided, and capacity expansion should be funded only with new dollars.
• The expansion of faith-based initiatives can have direct and indirect impacts on existing providers. Long-established faith-based providers – such as The ASSOCIATED, Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services and others – follow the rules and regulations, and avoid mixing religion with human services. Therefore any effort to relax those rules for religious organizations will put these providers at a disadvantage in their effort to access government funds.
• Any expansion of eligible providers should not come at the expense of existing providers who in many cases are straining financially to provide effective services to people in need. Investment by government in helping vulnerable populations remains one of the most important functions that our government can perform to enable people to help themselves and their families. The viability of the not-for-profit social service network will depend on having sufficient resources to meet the needs. Particularly if government seeks to fund an entirely new class of service providers, it has a responsibility to ensure that these and all other providers have the capacity and resources to assess and meet the needs.

The Baltimore Jewish Council opposes the initiative to introduce legal, commercialized gambling to Maryland. This position was adopted on November 9, 1995. “In December 2003 the Baltimore Jewish Council voted to oppose legislation that would legalize slot machine gambling in Maryland. We believe that if the state of Maryland is to meet its obligations – to the poor and the elderly, to its public school students and those with disabilities – these responsibilities must be shared by all citizens, and not laid on the shoulders of those least able to afford it, who are enticed to gamble on slot machines.”

Consistent with its policy in opposition to casino gambling, the BJC voted in December 2003 to urge the General Assembly to reject any legislation that would sanction slot machines or other types of electronic gaming devices, at racetracks or anywhere else. Maryland must meet its obligations, to its citizens and to communities that might suffer from the loss of the racetracks, through appropriate means, and not by taking advantage of human weakness.

This position was approved on December 17, 2003. (Addendum XIII).

Addendum XIII

Opposition to Legalized Slot Machines in Maryland

An explanation of Jewish communal concerns

Approved by Baltimore Jewish Council Board of Directors

December 17, 2003

The Baltimore Jewish Council, the government and community relations arm of the organized Jewish community of Baltimore, in 1995 adopted a resolution opposed to the establishment of commercialized casino gambling in Maryland.

As we noted at the time, and restate now, “Our faith teaches us that social responsibility involves the constructive development of the world and the support of civic institutions maintained by funds raised in appropriate ways.” Nothing has changed in this regard. But due to an altered political landscape, the specific issue of legalized slot machines and their use at local racetracks has arisen anew.

As a community relations agency, as well as a faith-based one, we are concerned about the impact the loss of Pimlico Racetrack might have on the surrounding neighborhoods, both Jewish and non-Jewish. We are aware of forecasts of economic dislocation, neighborhood deterioration, increased crime and attendant problems. The several hundred thousand dollars provided annually from racetrack impact funds has helped stabilize southern Park Heights neighborhoods in particular.

Further, institutions important to the Jewish community, including Sinai Hospital, Levindale Hebrew Geriatric Center and Hospital, Weinberg Place, synagogues and others would be affected by the future of Pimlico. We call for a collaboration of state, local and private sector resources to provide for the long-term stabilization and enhancement of those neighborhoods most directly impacted by the future of Pimlico.

However, we are deeply troubled by the possible recourse to slot machines to sustain not only the racetracks, but other vital societal needs that are the State of Maryland’s responsibility.

While we do not condone any type of gambling when it impairs the ability to provide for one’s family or contribute to society, we are especially concerned about slot machines. Also known as electronic gaming devices, slot machines are among the most addictive forms of wagering. And because the amount of money needed to play is so low, slot machines are more likely to attract those who are drawn by the lure of easy payoffs but who can least afford to lose.

The Torah teaches us not to put a stumbling block before the blind1 (Leviticus 19:14), which has been interpreted to mean any obstacle or temptation that is likely to cause harm if put in someone’s way. It is difficult to think of a more glaring example than slot machines.

We believe that if the state of Maryland is to meet its obligations – to the poor and the elderly, to its public school students and those with disabilities – these responsibilities must be shared by all citizens, and not laid on the shoulders of those least able to afford it, who are enticed to gamble on slot machines. It is difficult to believe that a state that substantially increases its reliance on gambling in order to meet basic needs will be satisfied to stop with slot machines. Casinos surely would follow, with the attendant gambling addiction, crime, corruption and economic drain on non-gambling businesses that followed in all other states that have chosen that path.

Therefore, we urge the General Assembly to reject any legislation that would sanction slot machines or other types of electronic gaming devices, at racetracks or anywhere else. Maryland must meet its obligations, to its citizens and to communities that might suffer from the loss of the racetracks, through appropriate means, and not by taking advantage of human weakness.

The Baltimore Jewish Council is concerned about a system of residential ground rent collections that has allowed the charging of exorbitant fees and, in rare cases, the eviction of residents from their homes due to the failure to pay relatively small amounts of ground rent.

We support a prohibition on the creation of new ground rents for single-family residential properties; the creation of a statewide registry of all existing ground rents, with reasonable fees and enforcement mechanisms; the strengthening of notice and posting requirements by ground rent holders; and continued efforts to eliminate any actual abuses the system currently allows, to be researched and recommended by a statewide task force of interested parties.

This position was adopted in February 2007. (Addendum VIII)

Addendum VIII

Ground Rent Reform Policy

Approved Tuesday, February 06, 2007

As the government and community relations arm of the organized Jewish community, our traditions and values inspire us to seek the protection of vulnerable individuals and families, including those made victims of financial abuse. In turn, we have long advocated for policies to prevent homelessness and foster economic self-sufficiency.

The Baltimore Jewish Council consequently is concerned about a system of residential ground rent collections that has allowed the charging of exorbitant fees and, in rare cases, the eviction of residents from their homes due to the failure to pay relatively small amounts of ground rent.

We believe that most ground rent holders act ethically and within the law in collecting the rents that are legitimately owed to them. And we acknowledge the economic need that ground rents served when they were first created, and recognize the many individuals who today depend upon modest ground rent payments to supplement their livelihoods, many of whom live on fixed incomes.

However, economic conditions have changed dramatically since the creation of ground rents, and we believe they no longer fulfill a legitimate need.

Therefore, we support:

• a prohibition on the creation of new ground rents for single-family residential properties;
• the creation of a statewide registry of all existing ground rents, with reasonable fees and enforcement mechanisms;
• the strengthening of notice and posting requirements by ground rent holders; and
• continued efforts to eliminate any actual abuses the system currently allows, to be researched and recommended by a statewide task force of interested parties.

The Baltimore Jewish Council supports gun control, including bans on semi-automatic weapons and the requirement that gun owners keep their firearms locked or securely out of the reach of children.