Tuesday, December 2, 2008


Two weeks ago I wrote of the irony I found in the UJC Chair's unilateral "negotiation" of a Dues deal with South Palm Beach County after falsely accusing me of "sweetheart deals" when I was actually charged with the responsibility as Financial Relations Chair. In this instance, Kanfer was alleged to have "guaranteed" the deal -- essentially a loan back to the federation of a substantial portion of its Dues obligation to be repaid with interest over time. I suppose that "deal" was intended to be ratified after the fact by the Financial Relations Committee.

As a not insignificant number of other federations have demanded dues relief, the UJC Officers appear to have decided among themselves to preempt the Financial Relations Committee and, as in all things, go it alone... a mistake, bad mistake.

A major Midwest Large City federation advised UJC leaders three years ago that it would no longer pay full dues -- it was demanding a reduction of over $1 million, as I recall. UJC made its "usual" forays into the community -- even to the irrational unprofessional direct approach of the President and CEO to Federation lay leaders without consultation with the Federation CEO. A meeting was held in NYC among Federation and UJC lay leaders in December 2006 (a meeting resisted for weeks by the UJC President who wished no further lay leader involvement) -- to no avail. UJC, as a sop to the community, gave it seats on the Budget & Finance Committee and, at least temporarily, on the UJC Executive Committee -- to no avail. Sooooo, Treasurer Michael Gelman, with some assistance from another of the Large City Executives, entered the fray.

And, allegedly, another "deal" -- one even more bizarre that that "reached" with South Palm Beach. Under this one, the Federation in question would be permitted to reduce its previously reported Annual Campaign totals so as to bring that Federation's obligation for annual Fair Share Dues down to an agreed upon maximum. (Fair share dues are determined by a federation's annual campaign divided by the aggregate of all American federations' annual campaigns.) Great negotiation -- UJC permits a"fiction" that effectively reduces this federation's annual campaign totals to reduce its dues thereby increasing the dues obligations of all other federations.

To satisfy one important federation, without consultation, in disregard of UJC's obligations to all federations, my federation and yours will pay an even greater dues amount...and this makes sense? This helps to build a system? This is "Fair Share?" Let's all make deals -- UJC will have to hire a new professional just to keep track of the deals!!


No comments: