Tuesday, February 9, 2010


Here is the way it has gone in far too many places:

"Motion: _____ Federation shall allocate from the 2009 Annual Community Campaign: (a) $228,728 to support Israel and International Jewry, of which $176,978 is for collective allocation to JAFI/JDC and $51,750 is for Partnership Overseas (as approved by the Board on July 14, 2009); and (b) $68,272 to continue as a member in good standing eligible for all benefits and programs of United Jewish Communities (Fair Share membership dues).

* * *
Supporting Information: The total amount of $297,000 represents a 31% decrease from the 2008-2009 allocation of $433,080 for these purposes and only about 25% of the 2009 Annual Community Campaign funds pledged"

We have seen too many federations take the "easy way out" of the current circumstances. We take funding away from those of our People most in need and reallocate the dollars. This unnamed federation didn't suffer a 31% decrease in its Annual Campaign; only JDC and JAFI suffered such draconian cuts.

And where was The Jewish Federations of North America? Fcused on its Dues and "areas of focus." To date, there has been no sense of national responsibility on this issue, no sense of moral responsibility...nowhere. How could this be, you ask? Yes, how could this be? But, hope is on the horizon. One of the Focus papers brilliantly laid out the arguments for national advocacy; let's see how JFNA follows up.

Friends, without an understanding of its collective responsibility, JFNA stands for nothing. The basic notion of the real meaning of "collective responsibility?" That wasn't debated or discussed in Dallas; only disparate reminders of what "collective response" could be. At the end of the day, it should have been discussed and debated in the macro sense; it wasn't.



Anonymous said...

Richard, you confuse tragedy with farce. The absurdity of the numbers as presented (if indeed they are real numbers) is that the community noted devised their split down to the dollar -- as if there was some carefully arrived logic of fairness, needs assessment and legalism. They might as well have passed the hat at a board meeting for 22 bucks so the overseas allocation would come to an even $177,000.

Anonymous said...

More likely if they wanted a round number it would have been to cut the allocation to an even $175,000