Besides the adoption of hereditary family names in 1813 and 1814 in Mecklenburg, the sovereign grants of community ordinances for the Israelite communities in the late 1840s and early 1850s were a further step towards the emancipation of the Mecklenburg Jews.
Admittedly, the community ordinances, which in Mecklenburg-Schwerin were issued by Grand Duke Friedrich Franz II and in Mecklenburg-Strelitz by Grand Duke Georg, were by no means the first regulations within the local Jewish communities. Efforts to establish a regulated legal framework had existed previously in the slowly developing Jewish communities. For instance, the communities of Waren (30 April 1830), Teterow (May 1836), and Sternberg (February 1840) had already imposed their own regulations, which were thenceforth respected by the community members.
The Mecklenburg rulers quite obviously did not wish to let the initiative slip from their hands, and gave all these self-governance efforts a clear rebuff by ignoring the already existing ones and replacing them with their own community ordinances.
Regardless, these regulations represented progress, for their very existence gave the Israelite communities of Mecklenburg at least a relative sovereignty vis-a-vis the towns and demonstrated that, like the Christians, the Jews irrevocably belonged to Mecklenburg.
The provisions of the community ordinances for the respective towns were, at least as far as the smaller towns were concerned, nearly identical and differed at most in the amounts of certain remuneration and contributions.
All Jewish residents of the respective town automatically became members of the respective community. Eligible to vote, however, were only -- and this was by no means exclusive to Jewish custom at the time -- male members who had either obtained the right of residence or lived independently from their trade or rents.
Regardless of voting eligibility and with the exception of synagogue attendants, community members who were financially self-sufficient had to make contributions to the community treasury, which varied according to their income. New members additionally had to pay an entry fee, which was likewise income-dependent.
The board of the community was formed by a chairman drawn from the community, who was elected by the community assembly with an absolute majority for a term of three years. Unlike current practice, the election as chairman was binding and could only be declined under very narrow conditions. For his service, reimbursement of expenses but no remuneration from the community treasury was provided.
The board was additionally assigned a treasurer, who was likewise elected for three years by absolute majority and fulfilled the function of the community's cashier. He too received no remuneration apart from expense reimbursement. The chairman and treasurer were further assigned an elected community messenger.
The community ordinance provided for a further institution, likewise unusual today: the board was assigned an official person known as a patron. This represented a considerable restriction on the freedom of community decision-making, as the elected board of the community could make decisions and represent the community externally, particularly in matters of property, administration, and law, only together with the patron. Since this amounted to a supervisory function, the patron was not to be a member of the community but was appointed by the respective magistrate from its own ranks. Unlike the other elected functions, the patron received a fixed sum from the community treasury for each session he attended.
According to the community ordinance, community assemblies had to be conducted exclusively in German, which was presumably not solely due to the patron's supervisory function. Apart from that, surely only very few community members were proficient in Hebrew.
These community assemblies served for passing resolutions and were required at least twice a year, at Midsummer and Michaelmas. Attendance was mandatory for eligible voters, and absence was punished with a fine payable to the community treasury. Disputes that could not be resolved by the board and the patron had to be submitted to the Grand Ducal Government for decision.
In addition to the statutory obligation to contribute to the local poor fund at the magistrate, the community ordinance also provided for the right to establish an additional poor fund for the members of the Israelite community.