Shul chair ousted by United Synagogue for the first time in living memory

An independent appeals process has upheld a decision by the United Synagogue to dismiss the chair of one of its shuls, with the individual in question making it clear that he is considering further ways to challenge the charity.

Daniel Anderson was re-elected unopposed as chair of Cockfosters and N Southgate Synagogue in May by all those present at the shul’s annual general meeting. A day after his re-election, the United Synagogue informed him that he was being removed from his position with immediate effect. It is understood that this is the first time the organisation has exercised such a power for many decades.

Anderson has consistently maintained that the reasons for his dismissal are based on “governance, procedural fairness and constitutional accountability”. For its part, the United Synagogue has now told Jewish News that “Daniel was removed from his position for gross misconduct after Trustees found he had been bullying staff over a sustained period.”

At an informal meeting at the shul organised a week after the AGM, at which Jewish News was present, Anderson informed members of the Shul that “there are some matters I cannot discuss publicly because they involve confidential personnel and operational issues”. He told the crowd of approximately 100 people that “the allegations were said to involve gross misconduct, gross default, and/or reputational damage.

“Now, I reject both the findings and the way that they were reached. Let me be clear: this is not a case involving financial impropriety, nor is it involving safeguarding issues or any abuse of office. What this case actually concerns is disagreement about tone, about communication, about how difficult issues were pursued in a contentious period.”

Jewish News understands that multiple bullying complaints were made against Anderson towards the end of 2025, with an investigation into his conduct subsequently launched.

At the informal meeting, which was arranged as such because calling for an Emergency General Meeting would have required two week’s notice given to the United Synagogue, Anderson told community members that he had first discovered that he had been removed as chair after he had been unable to sign in to the Shul chair’s account on the United Synagogue’s system, and questioned why he had not been allowed to continue in the role while an appeal was taking place.

“Over the past year, we have raised serious concerns about how this community was being managed and resourced”, he told those present, saying that “we raised operational problems, we were dealing with repeated infrastructure failures, drainage, heating, maintenance, while trying to plan for the future of this building, this community.”

He described the board as having raised “governance concerns” about “accountability and the relationship between the shuls and head office. This is not misconduct, that is representation.”

Anderson went on to say that “those concerns were never mine alone. They were discussed collectively by the honorary officers, and then formally set out in an email to the President on 1 March. That email matters because it shows this was not a personal grievance, which emerged later. It was a formal expression of much wider set of governance, operational, and strategic concerns that had already been building over time, but somewhere along the line, those governance concerns were turned into a disciplinary matter focused on me personally, and I can understand why that’s convenient.”

There was no mention of bullying raised at the informal meeting and it is unclear whether the members present, who appeared vocally supportive of Mr Anderson and condemnatory of the United Synagogues’ conduct, were aware that such allegations had been made by staff.

It is also unclear whether they knew about previous allegations of bullying levelled at Mr Anderson. In March 2020, when he was serving as a local councillor, Enfield Council’s monitoring officer ruled that he had breached the local authority’s code of conduct and had bullied officers. As reported by the Enfield Independent at the time, two separate complaints about Cllr Anderson’s conduct were made. Three council officers claimed Cllr Anderson engaged in “threatening and uncontrolled” behaviour, while a fourth alleged Cllr Anderson threatened him with physical assault. Anderson “emphatically” denied the allegations against him, describing the subsequent investigation as “based on hearsay from a handful of officers”, and went on to say that “completely unsubstantiated and often libellous allegations against me have been accepted as a given, whilst internal guidelines, procedures and protocols under which I have been investigated have been breached.”

Anderson, who had previously served as Deputy Leader of Enfield Council, was subsequently suspended from Labour before he chose to leave the party in August. In September 2020, the council’s conduct committee upheld the original decision of the monitoring officer.

There had been considerable friction between different factions of the local Labour party on the council; Anderson noted at the time that while a bullying complaint had been heard and upheld against the council leader, Nesil Caliskan, she had not been subject to any significant sanction because of it. Ms Caliskan has since become the Labour MP for Barking.

Mr Anderson appealed the United Synagogue’s action of removing him from office, which is understood to have been an option available to them by the use of a volunteer protocol. He told Cockfosters and N Southgate members at the informal meeting that the process which had been used against him to remove him from his position “relied on policy documents which were never formally approved. That matters, because it means the process has no clear constitutional authority.” He said that his counsel “wrote to the United Synagogue, saying that process was inconsistent with natural justice, and asking them to withdraw the investigational document. They did not engage with that, and the process continued.”

He warned those listening that this should concern them, “whether you support me or not.

“Today it is me. Tomorrow, it could be another chair, another volunteer, or another community. The United Synagogue was not created to be run from the centre by decree, it was created as a representative body made up of communities with elected officers and constitutional safeguards, but over the past year we have seen a pattern that should trouble every community it represents.”

Jewish News understands that the appeals panel process, which was chaired by a top KC, concluded that the volunteer disciplinary framework was valid and appropriately applied and that the investigation and Trustee Panel processes were fair, reasonable and procedurally sound. Those behind the appeal also ruled that the findings reached by the Trustee Panel were supported by the evidence and fell within the range of reasonable responses, and that the sanction of removal from the role of Chair was proportionate in light of the findings.

In a response to Jewish News in the wake of the decision, Mr Anderson said: “The appeal process may well have concluded, but it did not address any of the central issues I raised.

“My concerns have never been about personalities. They are about governance, procedural fairness and constitutional accountability within one of the country’s largest Jewish charities.

“I remain firmly of the view that I was removed through a process that lacked basic procedural safeguards. I was never provided with proper particulars of the allegations against me, and the appeal process did not permit the evidence or witness accounts relied upon against me to be properly tested. In addition, policies central to the process had never been approved by the United Synagogue Council, the constitutional governing body of the United Synagogue, before being applied in my case. In my view, those are serious governance issues that extend well beyond my own circumstances.

“Since my removal, I have received overwhelming support from members of my community. Indeed, as you are aware, at a meeting held after the outcome was announced, the overwhelming majority of those present expressed their confidence in me, and I have continued to receive subsequent messages of support. That reinforces my belief that this arose from a wider governance dispute rather than any genuine concern about my conduct.

“While the United Synagogue may regard this matter as concluded, I do not. I am carefully reviewing the outcome, taking advice and considering my next steps. I will make further comment in due course.”

Jo Grose, Chief Executive of the United Synagogue, said:

“We had hoped not to need to issue this statement and that, following his removal as Chair by the Trustees after a thorough and detailed investigation process, Daniel would not continue to make inaccurate claims.

“Daniel was removed from his position for gross misconduct after Trustees found he had been bullying staff over a sustained period. The wellbeing and safety of our staff is a top priority. We take all allegations of this nature seriously and will act where concerns are substantiated.

“The investigation and subsequent independent appeal process, chaired by an eminent KC, provided the Trustees with clear and consistent findings which supported the conclusion of gross misconduct and the decision to remove Daniel from office. The appeal outcome upheld the Trustees’ original decision in full.

“We are grateful to those members of staff who came forward, often in difficult circumstances, and we continue to ensure that appropriate support is available to them.”

At the informal shul meeting, it was announced that the other members of the Synagogue Council would lead jointly, as a team, rather than seeking to elect a chair to succeed Mr Anderson.