DENOUEMENT

"DENOUEMENT" -- what a perfect word, what a perfect descriptive term for the accumulation of issues over these past five years that have brought UJC to this day.

For the past years, as I see it, UJC has been missing four elements critical to any institutional success: a moral center, a grounding in the reality of the federation experience and a dedication to the timeless principles upon which our federation system has been constructed and a commitment to real transparency. The result of this void has been the separation of UJC from the federations, the Network, JAFI, JDC, ORT and our system's funded National Agencies in so many ways.

Some recent incidents strongly suggest that hope must be measured against the "UJC culture" that has been created over the past five years. Some examples: a GA Task Force on which serious federation leaders put in significant time issued its report a few weeks ago. The Report failed to cite the Task Force's key Recommendation as I understand it to be -- that the GA morph into an every two year event. I know the arguments for the GA to continue as our annual conclave; I support those. But, the way to achieve that goal is not to exorcise the Recommendations of a Task Force through a sheer power play.

Then there is the Executive Committee's action to approve an extremely expensive Donor Management System. Good Task Force Report, so expensive and out of the reach of federations struggling with severe economic issues, The Jewish Federations of North America are about to commit millions of dollars to develop a system that will be potentially used by a fraction of the federations -- many of which have already told the national organization they can't afford it. So why now? Did a number of federations which argued they "get nothing" from the "old UJC" strong arm the system for this? Did The Executive Committee, as was the case with the approval of what turned into the two-plus million Marketing and Branding Initiative, get overwhelmed by the technical presentation by the consultants who will benefit the most from this contract? Did anyone ask "how can we afford this at this moment of fragility and crisis?" Is it in either the national organization's or the federations' interest that The Jewish Federations of North America "own" a system rather than federations directly contracting with the service provider? Have there been system analyses in multiple federations before the "decision?" Just asking?

Yes, like you I pray that the new lay-professional leadership will be like sunlight through the fog of the past. Yet, I see glimmers of the dark past blocking that sunlight. Those who read this Blog regularly will recall that Rieger/Kanfer/Gelman in Spring 2008 devoted almost three months to threatening UIA's very existence solely...solely...because I served as its Chair. Those leaders developed a rationalizing mantra: "We need to 'complete the merger'" by substituting UJC's leaders for UIA's Board as to all things related to the Jewish Agency for Israel. Ignore the reality that the Jewish Federations of yadyadayada Board must approve and has approved the nominees to the JAFI Board from the United States, ignore the fact that The Jewish Federations of North America's leadership served on the UIA Nominating Committees for its Officers and Board, and, most important, ignore the fact that since the merger, under a succession of Chairs, UIA's Board has been comprised of federation leaders nominated only after consultation with their federations.

To Kanfer, Rieger and Gelman this was not enough -- why? Because they did not control the processes. Not that the processes weren't working, not that the UIA Board was not a productive one representing the federation system in monitoring the expenditure of federation allocations to JAFI and delivering the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Grant of literally hundreds of millions of dollars to JAFI-- only because the troika did not totally control me. It made no difference to them that the UIA Board and staff were doing the job assigned to it in the merger.

Ignoring the fact that the merger of UIA was completed in toto when The Jewish Federations of North America f/k/a UJC was formed thanks to the vote of the federations, thanks to the vote of JDC, thanks to the votes of UIA and UJA; and ignoring the fact that the terms of UIA's joinder in the merger were fully incorporated in the approved Merger Agreement, three people -- Kanfer, Rieger and Gelman -- wanted my scalp and would have worked to destroy UIA if they didn't get it. While that chapter closed in 2008, the internal Jewish Federations of North America grapevine has told me that now the incoming lay leadership has directed the staff (lay leaders directing staff going around the CEO to do so? Unacceptable.) to again analyze the reasons they don't sense that they completely control UIA.

I find it hard to believe that this new Lay leadership may allow itself to be distracted as were their predecessors; that they will concern themselves with control for control's sake at a time that their focus needs to be on how UJC can best engage with its federation owners in a new federationcentric mode; that transparency may be sacrificed to satisfy the most powerful, even as the organization might be torn apart rather than mended. Will someone ask "do we need these distractions at this time in this way...again?" Is the message of The Jewish Federations of North America, which embodies the very concept of Jewish unity, going to once again embroil itself in acts of disunity? Actually, consider the questions asked. (For those who seek a seat at The Federations of North America table, be reminded of the Washington maxim: "If you aren't at the table, you're probably on the menu." More on that in a few days.)

I hope that I have been misinformed for if what I have learned from inside UJC itself is correct, a "good start," even a great one, will quickly turn into opportunity lost and The Jewish Federations of North America will just as quickly face its denouement.


Rwexler