Sunday, August 15, 2010


In discussions over the last week, I have learned JFNA's perspective on the my Post which, framed as a letter to the Board Chair, stated that she had acted unilaterally in rejecting two "split" agreements reached by the Jewish Agency and the Joint:

~ Nothing was done unilaterally. The JFNA perspective: in both 2008 and 2009, the now Board Chair consulted with some form of "leadership Committee" (which included at least two Large City CEOs)and with leaders of the City-size federation groups before responding to the "partners."

~ After consulting these "leadership Committees," at least in 2009, she rewrote the JAFI/JDC Agreement in part in an effort to "help" the partners reach an agreement that would be "acceptable" to the federations.

~ At no time, either in 2008 or 2009, were JAFI and/or JDC consulted by the now Board Chair or anyone else from UJC/JFNA with regard to any issues in the agreements they had reached through their negotiations before they were advised, in 2008, that their agreement had been rejected by a "leadership Committee" or, in 2009, they received a revised agreement not marked to show the changes made.

I hope this clarifies the record.

I have written over 500 Posts since January 1, 2009. It is true that I have raised issues as to UJC's and JFNA's leadership skills and JFNA's lack of focus or follow-up and understanding of the system they were chosen to lead, among other matters of substance. But, at no time, have I questioned their commitment, as volunteers or professionals, or ridiculed them for their appearance or intellect. I am a firm believer in "people in glass houses..." Anyone who suggests that I have can only be doing so merely to divert attention from the substance of what I (and those who have offered Comments) have written.

Finally, apparently no one at JFNA reads this Blog. Posts are sometimes sent to them Yet, the Blog (and, of course, I) often infuriates them. Perhaps, they should consider reading it more often -- including the Comments. It couldn't hurt.


No comments: