Moreover, the board called on village staff members to “contact the Milwaukee Jewish Federation to open a dialogue” on new language for that part of the agreement.

But MJF president Judy Segall Guten said, “Re-writing this passage is only secondary to bigger issues. New language concerning this isolated issue certainly won’t resolve our reasons for rejecting the overall proposal.”

Further, she said, “Holding religious events is central to the usage of the campus. We have many cultural, educational and social activities there. Changing the language is yet another reason why we feel double-crossed by the Whitefish Bay board.”

According to the meeting’s printed agenda, the board removed “references to religious activity involving events in the community hall,” deleting the entire text under the “Community Hall” section in the agreement.

Further, the board approved development of new language for that provision which, according to the resolution, “more accurately reflects the intention of this board and the village with regard to the frequency, number and size of activities conducted in the proposed Community Hall. To that end, staff are directed to contact the Milwaukee Jewish Federation to open a dialogue to discuss the development of such a provision and to report back to the board at its next regularly scheduled meeting [on June 16] regarding alternative language.”

As Village Manager James Grassman told The Chronicle, “Though we are aware that the federation has rejected the plan we approved on May 5, the board still wanted to clean up the language in that subarticle to better reflect its intent not to limit the number of religious activities that can be held in the community hall. In other words, we want to make sure the previous action properly reflects the board’s intent.”

This move was not expected by MJF representatives. Federation attorney Bruce Block told The Chronicle that “Until Monday, I was unaware that this change was in the works. I don’t know what to say about it or why Whitefish Bay is doing this given our response to their proposal.”

Grassman sent a letter on Tuesday to Guten requesting a meeting to discuss “alternative language regarding frequency, number, and size of activities in the proposed new community hall.”

Guten said that any further communication with the village on the matter “is in the hands of the federation’s legal team.”