BIZARROLAND

about There is at least one Federation of the 157 that is without doubt the single most incredible place in the constellation of federations. Back in the day it had created so much debt that its then leadership had to engage in heroic acts to retire it...and they did. In doing so, that leadership fell behind on many obligations -- overseas allocations payments and national system Dues, among others.

Fast forward to the JFNA "era" if you will. First, this federation hires a terrific, experienced professional leader; then lets him go. Hired a new professional leader, one with what appears to be a strong FRD background. Then, communal facilities were damaged by hurricane; the federation sought hardship Dues relief from JFNA, rejected outright by JFNA's "leaders." The federation's Chair and CEO effectively "dismissed" past Chairs from any role in the communal instrumentality when those federation Chairs were told that they must increase their annual campaign gifts of they would be off the Board. Good faith attempts to resolve these issues were rejected unilaterally by the federation's leaders.

Incredible salaries were paid to a CEO and his top aide -- approved apparently by the Chair, the CEO'S biggest supporter even as the annual campaign dropped precipitously...but that CEO became ill on the job and when he returned to health was informed that his contract would not be renewed. Then a new CEO was hired-- given a contract for an extremely brief time frame (one- and one-half years). That term lasted but a few months.

A new Chair was elected and this federation jumped the gun on the Select Core Priorities -- with no discussion just threw what I understand was about $45,000 to the JDC -- that's from a Federation that allocates about 6% of its campaign for overseas needs in total...yes, 6%. And, under the Global Planning Table, 6% would qualify for "membership." Huh?

Then on April 21, 2011, within 25 minutes of each other, the Federation Chair e-mailed the community (or what is now left of it) to announce tersely and suggestively that, first, the CEO and, next, the Foundation Director, had "resigned." Not even a "thanks for your service to the community," just...gone.

And, the Annual Campaign? A shell of its former self -- down another $1 million more or less this year. When I wrote that our communal success is dependent upon the trust the donors have in the Federation, I could have been thinking about Bizzaroland.

(Was Jerry consulted in the midst of any part of this mess? Just asking inasmuch as Bizarroland pays $650,000 in annual JFNA Dues...that's $650,000, my friends...2% of JFNA's Budget. Hello...and hello, again.)

As one of the FOBs said: "You couldn't make this stuff up." Another, very knowledgeable in the workings (or dysfunction) of this federation, suggested that just as with the Los Angeles Dodgers, the Commissioner of Major League Baseball, should take over this federation: "after all," she said, "the circumstances are the same -- ...no money, no leadership and no...support" -- only worse.


Rwexler

ONCE UPON A TIME...

Once upon a time, long, long ago, in a land called UJA the United Jewish Appeal brought together what became known as the Mega-Donor Group. The effort was chaired by immediate past Chair of the UJA Board, the incredible Marvin Lender, a mega-contributor himself, Max Fisher, z'l, our remarkable and indefatigable patriarch of Jewish communal life, and Brian Lurie, then the UJA CEO, one of the most creative professional leaders in our history.

Building on their participation in the leadership and inspiration of Operation Exodus, these million dollar donors came together, "elected" Charles Bronfman and Les Wexner as Co-Chairs, effectively asked Brian Lurie to leave, and met periodically to discuss among themselves philanthropic projects in which they were personally interested, often joining together in coalitions of the willing with varying membership. At one time, I recall, Max invited Bob Aronson, then the Detroit Federation CEO, to present to the group but it was a rare moment when the federation system was the focus (or even mentioned?). The Mega-Group eventually "dissolved" and the participants generally went off in their own philanthropic directions.

At the insistence of, at the least, the Chicago and New York Federations, starting about four years ago JFNA committed itself to recreating the Mega-Donors Group albeit in a rebranded fashion. Howard Rieger committed to staffing the effort, Co-Chairs were recruited from among the great philanthropists in Chicago and NYC...and,of course, nothing happened. Fast forward to 2010, when Jerry Silverman agreed to lead the recruitment effort. Paul Kane was engaged by JFNA, at least in part, because his New York experience brought him into contact with any number of million dollar donors -- there is as we know a diffference between "contact" and engagement. I assume that philanthropist Dan Ochs, currently the Chair of Birthright Israel, agreed to Co-Chair the nascent effort at the urging of his great friend, the late Itzik Shavut, z"l.

But, at no time did JFNA examine the history of the UJA Mega-Donors effort to learn from it. This is their style -- if a book has already been written, they aren't even going to look at the Table of Contents. After all, they always know better and history is always to be disregarded. So JFNA has attempted to make contact with a group of mega-donors, inviting them to an initial meeting, the subject of which would include...federation and JFNA. Rather than allowing the "group" to come together and identify issues and concerns relevant to them, JFNA would dictate an agenda that may or may not be. And, from what I have learned, this dictation method has turned off any number of them; many of whom will not "waste their time."

In the UJA era, there was, in place, a body of mega-donors around whom the effort could be built. Today, in the JFNA "era," those lay leaders who have access to the most significant donors around the Continent, have either become disenchanted, disenfranchised or tossed aside. This has led to JFNA professionals pleading with federation CEOs to recruit mega-donors from within their federation boundaries to a meeting in New York in which these federation CEOs have played no part and in which they will play no part. This is a curious circumstance only to those who have not had any prior experience with the monarchy.

History tells us that putting together this unique group of leaders is extremely difficult even when a strong organization of strong leaders is calling the group together. Today's JFNA, lacking any credibility, and basically "unled," hasn't a prayer.

Rwexler

IF YOU DON'T KNOW...

When I read the JFNA Draft Budget, it hearkened me back to the rubric: "If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there." And enwrapping a Budget in jargon and cliche doesn't make it a better guide to JFNA's plans for the coming year. Categories of service change, promises of monitoring and evaluation reappear (echoing the unrequited promises of previous years) and, trust me, confusion reigns. There is one applicable truism here: if JFNA has ten, twenty, thirty priorities, it has no priorities at all. And that is where we find ourselves today.

Sure, I hoped that the final Budget would show some real focus on federation needs, federation issues and on the things that JFNA could do best. Instead we have thirteen pages of "priority goals" -- a ridiculous 36 "priority goals" in all. Hence, "if you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there." Where there are no priorities, there is no focus, there is chaos. The final Budget and a book of Appendices merely validated the Draft Budget reflecting it like a fun house mirror.

So confused is this Budget that Development...er, Philanthropic Resources... has lumped within it all kinds of things: A "Millionaires project" after four years of this "project" first appearing in the Budget; "Targeted Support for Challenged Federations" the Objectives for which include "[D]evelop tools that will support JFNA's outreach and support for underperforming federations..." and "identify (hello? 'identify' after three years? Hey, look around) and support strategic collaborations...;" "...leverage the Consulting Fund" (the budget for which will be cut); "[c]ontinue to strengthen affinities" (when the position of lead professional for, e.g., the Young Leadership Cabinet has been vacant for, how long, two years?); "shape the (non-existent) missions program going forward; and so on -- as Salieri might have said: "too many words." How about Marketing funded to
"[I]ncrease the number of Federations that adopt continental branding from 76 (that's less than half)." And, of course, there is the implementation of the Global Planning Table; the delivery of a "white paper on new strategy for the GA;" "develop organizational capacity in the area of research" (after most of those experienced in research and planning have left); and a whole slew of plans from JFNA-Israel irrelevant to the federation system.

I could go on but, really, is it not evident that most of these plans and programs exist in a vacuum. What is the relationship of the page after page of programs to the Mission of JFNA? If there were one, of course. What we have instead is the JFNA version of an impregnable VENN diagram -- designed exactly that way and for that purpose -- you aren't supposed to know that the programs, generally, have no dollars attached to them -- the dollars, of course, being fungible with no controls. And, now federation leaders have approved this Budget in lockstep as the recent past was repeated. But...but...aren't federation leaders -- lay and professional alike -- sick of reflexively endorsing by their silence the unplanned narrative of JFNA's leaders?

To paraphrase Newsweek's Niall Ferguson (who was writing about Obama's failed foreign policy): "The defining characteristic (of JFNA) has been not just a failure to prioritize but also a failure to recognize the need to do so."

Rwexler

LET'S BE CLEAR

In response to my Post in which I opined that the President did not deserve JFNA's warm (albeit hidden in a wave of words) support for his positions on Israel and the "peace process," I received an important Comment that began with the following: "Mr. Wexler your hatred of all things JFNA has gotten the better of you this time." And, while I find myself in agreement with all else this Anonymous Commentator wrote, I thought that this quoted conclusion required response:

How could I "...hate all things JFNA?" I helped to create it, with others I drafted its Vision and I understand its Mission. The structure of JFNA has within it my blood, sweat and tears and those of so many others, as well. What I do hate is what JFNA has become, the lack of purpose, the lack of priorities, the lack of leadership. And I admit to hating (although that's a pretty strong word) the frittering away of credibility on the narishkeit of personal vendettas and the pursuit of personal agendas at the expense of our system. And, yes, I do hate the reality that this leadership has totally abandoned the Mission conceived by the federations at the time of the merger -- that JFNA would be the place for the creation of greater resources for the federations and our partners while advocating for all.

I continue to see the potential for JFNA's greatness and strength and I will continue to strive with all of you to see JFNA emerge from the darkness to the light committed not just to "the brand" but to the federation agenda, not just to control but to involvement and engagement. But I admit that the current leadership appears incapable of this kind of achievement. With you I want a strong national system, one in which we can all take pride for all of its achievements. We are so far from those goals right now that they appear to be beyond our reach. But I, with you, will continue to strive for them even as I write this Blog in almost total frustration with the current leadership's aimless pursuits.

I have written of my love for the federation system and all that it has given to me and to my family over these past 38 years. It is not I who have abandoned it; it has abandoned me and so many of you, but, worse, it has abandoned the very system which sustains JFNA...and that is the ultimate irony and the ultimate tragedy.

Rwexler

CATCHING UP...AGAIN

I watched the AIPAC Conference 2011 with great pride. Imagine a Conference of (mainly) Jewish leaders from across the land, standing in support of Israel, in numbers -- over 11,000 -- that not even in its wildest dreams could JFNA and, sadly, our federations -- conflate in their wildest dreams. A JFNA that to the date of this Post still has been unable to summon the koach, the strength, to speak out in opposition to President Obama's articulated formula for deconstructing the U.S.- Israeli relationship. JFNA instead, days after the fact, hid its statement in a Briefing applauding Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech to Congress, Here's what Jerry Silverman said (ostensibly on our behalf -- used the "we" quite often -- but maybe he meant just Kathy Manning, Michael Gelman and himself):
.
'We thank President Obama for his strong statements that Palestinian attempts to delegitimize Israel will fail, that attempts to isolate Israel internationally will not produce a Palestinian State, nor will attempts to achieve a unilateral declaration of statehood at the UN; that Hamas must renounce terror, and that the Palestinians must accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State,' said JFNA President and CEO Jerry Silverman."

And, yes, the President said that -- but he also said so much more and so much worse, as noted in strong op-eds by, e.g., Steve Huntley in the Chicago Sun-Times and Bret Stephens in The Wall Street Journal. But my/your organization
parses the President's words in an apparent search for good.

One organization, AIPAC, its Mission clear; the other, JFNA, unfocused, with no priorities and lacking courage. One attracts over 11,000 to its Policy Conference; the other attracts 2,500, if that, to our GA. As one great professional who attended the AIPAC Conference concluded, "Imagine, Richard, 11,000 Jewish leaders meeting together with a sense of common purpose!!" I can hardly remember the time when in fact we did have common purpose. Guess we will keep our seats in the House gallery occupied by Kathy Manning and Susie Stern today on our behalf.

Rwexler

KEEN OBSERVATION

This morning, as with most mornings, one of my first "reads" is the daily e-jewish philanthropy Newsletter. Today's contained a thoughtful piece on the GPT from Stephen Donshik, for so many years the professional leader of the New York UJA-Federation Israel Office, whose analysis appears frequently in e-jewish philanthropy.

I reprint the article below:

"The Struggle for Relevance: JFNA and Overseas Allocations
May 24, 2011 by Stephen G. Donshik

I have spent the last several weeks studying JFNA’s Select Core Priorities (SCP) and its desire to reach consensus in the regard to the “Global Planning Table” (GPT). Yesterday, JFNA released a “Leadership Briefing -- Board Addresses Global Responsibility, Planning for the Future” (Dated May 23, 2011). I have read the available material on the Internet, spoken with volunteer leaders, and discussed it with professionals in the Federation field. During this time colleagues and I reached out to professionals at JFNA to engage them in a discussion and unfortunately we received less than a substantive response. It appears that JFNA’s recent Board Meetings created additional processes with fewer decisions leading to clearly defined preferred actions for the Federation system.

I have been involved in Jewish communal service for over 40 years and I have worked in and observed the international Jewish communal arena for more than 25 years. For almost the last twenty years there has been a great deal of structural change in the way the “players” have related to each other and tried to move their common and separate agendas forward. I am sure that many readers remember the Council of Jewish Federations (CJF) and the United Jewish Appeal (UJA). These two organizations were combined and went through phases from “Newco” to “United Jewish Communities” (UJC) to “The Jewish Federations of North America” (JFNA). All along the way there was, and continues to exist, an inherent tension on how the organized Jewish Federation community and individual local (Federation) communities would conceive of and organize to meet both local and overseas needs.

When the two separate organizations existed (as) CJF and UJA, it was relatively clear that CJF, as a membership organization, represented the interests of the local Federations and the system as a whole. The organization both advocated for the Federations’ interests and provided services to meet a continuum of needs from leadership development to endowment funds to structuring campaigns. UJA’s role was to be an advocate for the overseas needs and to continually provide information and represent the interests of the Federation’s overseas partners, mainly the Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI) through the United Israel Appeal and the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC).

Following the dismantling of the old framework and the creation of the UJC, a new system called ONAD, Overseas Needs Assessment and Distribution, was put into place. A more comprehensive understanding of the ONAD process can be found here.

Although the ONAD process was an interesting experiment in Jewish communal planning it successfully created an inordinate amount of tension and competition between the overseas partners. It is unclear whether it could ever be referred to as a “success” in achieving comprehensive planning for the Federations’ overseas agendas. It did manage to demonstrate how the system could not achieve its goals. There was an attempt to distinguish between JAFI and JDC. They were aiming to show how the two organizations were able to identify emerging needs overseas and develop services that were, at the very least not competitive, and, at the very most, complementary in their purposes and implementation.

Given the ONAD experience we would expect JFNA to design a system that would avoid the pitfalls of the previous experience. It should have aimed at creating a process that would not only bolster the local communities’ campaigns but also provide opportunities to strengthen the relationship between the overseas partners and the Federation system. Apparently the SCP 2011, was presented to the leadership of JFNA and local Federations and there was agreement on the idea but apparently, not in regard to implementing the SCP across the continent.

It appears as it if was easier for JAFI and JDC to overcome their competitiveness and agree to work together than it was to achieve implementation within the Federation system:

The proposed framework contains four key elements: revitalization of the historic global partnership of Jewish Federations, JDC and the Jewish Agency; establishing clear goals and operational guidelines for collective overseas engagement; creating a global planning table; and establishing an enhanced overseas allocations process for Jewish Federation funding. (Agreement Reached on Overseas Funding Framework, September, 2010)

Even though this framework was endorsed by the two overseas partners, it appears that there was no unity within the Federation system. In light of the SCP 2011, there was an expectation that local Federations would allocate funds overseas using these priorities. Unfortunately for the system there were communities that allocated lower amounts, perhaps as little as 5% of their campaign, and there were other communities that made a decision to forward upward toward 30% or more to JFNA for the overseas partners for their core budgets.

Once this imbalance was established it made it harder and harder for the system to agree to a GPT that would not only be accepted but also endorsed by the system. Those who are supportive of finding a system that would not only unify the Federations but also raise additional funds for allocating overseas are frustrated. The national system is not acting collectively and local Federations are finding it very difficult to look beyond their own local (and somewhat personal) interest.

Federations that are committed to both JFNA and the core budgets of the overseas partners, like New York and Chicago, may find it difficult to sit at the same table with communities that allocate either a small percentage of their funds to the core budgets or nothing at all.

If, and when, the GPT is utilized as a tool for decision-making it may be that some of the donor families that have been the “die-hard” supporters of the campaigns for decades will threaten to walk away because decisions are being made by Federations that do not represent their values or commitments to the overseas partners.

It appears that the disparity of interests among the member Federations has made it very difficult for the system to achieve consensus. The lack of a basic agreement among its members for the purposes of raising funds and allocating them to the overseas agencies raises serious questions about JFNA’s relevance. Does it lack the ability to fulfill its mandate as the membership organization of the Federations (ala CJF), on the one hand, and the advocate for overseas needs and services (ala UJA), on the other hand?

If the SCP and GPT are really a re-issuing of the less than successful ONAD process, then one has to question the relevance of JFNA in dealing with the challenges the Federations face in raising the funds the overseas agencies need to implement programs and deliver services. Something has to be done to motivate the national system to act collectively and to regain the shared passion that once existed in the way local communities raised and allocated funds. If this cannot be achieved by the local, national and international organizations then perhaps the present system needs to be re-examined."

Donshik's analysis is spot on. Is there anyone out there listening?

Rwexler

JFNA -- OUR ZOMBIE BRAND

The title of this Post probably would have Jerry's attention. Let me explain...

A recently published discussion on "Zombie brands" caught my attention; seemed to me to capture the essence of JFNA. "Zombie brands," as Jerry surely knows a helluva lot better than I, are brands that live off their names after having relinquished the quality, the distinction, that made them well known. In 2011-2012, JFNA plans to invest even more than the $2,000,000 (+++) it has already wasted on establishing JFNA as the brand of the Federation system. Friends, I would wager that even today, over 11 years after the first iteration of JFNA leaders walked away from the power of the UJA brand, there is greater market recognition of UJA than of JFNA. And, of course, Jerry knows that.

So, the federations are asked to throw more money at a brand that will have no credibility until there is substance associated with it. JFNA's lay and professional leaders continue to confuse the message with substance, parties and events with substance; they seem to know not what substance is. And the drumbeat of form over substance is 24/5 at the least...and it is the very least. A Daily Media Guide that throws everything but the kitchen sink at the reader; without commentary (other than "observation"), it often cites to articles critical of the very federations it serves.

But, worse, on the critical issues, take the President's abandonment of Israel in an effort to curry favor with "the international community," JFNA has no voice whatsoever. With the IAI and the IAN, JFNA cannot bring itself to express the strong sense of our communities that Obama's position is just plain wrong, wrong-headed and dangerous. Are our leaders afraid that they won't be invited to White House Chanukah parties and briefings if they speak out? Or are they too busy with the GPT to have heard that President Obama has turned his back and worse on the only democracy, America's only friend in the Middle East. J Street doesn't speak for me, Abe Foxman (or is it ADL -- or are they one and the same) doesn't speak for me, Morton Klein doesn't speak for me either. But those who are supposed to be my, our, voice, are silent. And the silence is deafening. What did JFNA say (on May 20)? " [W]e believe it remains prudent to take a long view, beyond the moment, before making public comments." Ahhhh, the courage...the leadership...and just who is "we?"

So, JFNA continues to be the Zombie brand -- clueless, already outdated and by its own actions and silence...irrelevant.

Rwexler

JFNA, THE POTEMKIN VILLAGE OF JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary -- "Potemkin Village: an impressive facade or show designed to hide an undesirable fact or condition."

Eureka!! I have discovered the reality of JFNA -- it is the Jewish organizational equivalent of the Russian Potemkin Village. Hiding behind the facade of JFNA Washington, some marketing materials and a group of young professionals who would like to be and have the capacity to contribute in a meaningful way to federation growth, one discovers...nothing at all.

What do I mean? Take a careful look at JFNA-Israel. What do you see? Look at the 2011-2012 Budget for "Global Operations" -- what's there other than the expenditure of millions of our dollars? Examine the Global Planning Table -- who are the professionals responsible for this mythic structure -- Jim Lodge departs the professional staff next month; hiring is planned. Add $1.2 million to the GPT Budget and what do you have? Nothing at all.

Then you have Philanthropic Resources f/k/a Development f/k/a Campaign. Millions budgeted. You have some Regional "Ignitions," Planned Giving and Endowments, the constituencies and...nothing at all. Oh, of course, there are references to national and VIP Missions -- and that's exactly what they are...references.

Then, the new "core program," the Second Annual TribeFest. The first was such a "success" that it attracted about 1,000 young men and women not already involved in federation life to Las Vegas for what was advertised as a weekend of fun. Lost over $350,000 (when one includes staff overhead and travel; $253,000 without those). Let's build on that "success," sure.

Even programs with real promise appear to offer only a glimpse behind the Potemkin facade-- take the JFNA Professional Women's Leadership Conference -- strangely restricted to "...professional woman leader(s) in your federation (who) have worked in a Federation, non-profit organization or corporation for at least 10 years..." Jerry offered "Thoughts on Effective Leadership." Would love to have heard that one. Kathy spoke on something called "What, I Can Be a Mentor?" Huh? One, and only one, woman federation CEO or COO, Chief of Staff, Campaign or Endowment Director or EVP was a featured speaker at this Conference -- not the woman professional leaders from the LA Valley Alliance, New York UJA, Chicago, Hartford, Columbus, San Francisco, etc., etc., etc. Maybe the organizers didn't know they exist. The Conference was held in Chicago May 17-19; perhaps the group would have been best served by attending the Chicago JUF Women's Division Spring Event on May 18 -- and seen how over 1,000 women leaders, lay and professional, gather to express their commitment to community and People. But, no.

And, yet, this group that seems to have the reverse Midas touch, not content to revisit the continuous screw-up of JFNA itself, has convinced itself that it can control the overseas allocations process without screwing that up. It's "mirror, mirror on the wall" Fantasy-land. They look at the Potemkin Village they have created and all they see is a Shining City on the Hill, bright, reflecting their greatness.

I guess that gets them through the day.

Rwexler

HAVING A LAUGH

If they weren't so consistently sad and misinformed, and, dare I add, often intentionally misleading, JFNA's frequent LEADERSHIP BRIEFINGS would be a source of constant amusement.

Thus, the one on April 4 -- EVOLVING STRATEGIES AT JFNA. Talking about "taking on several key new initiatives, the BRIEFING states: "...including the Israel Action Network, which is designed to help communities strategically advocate for Israel and to counter anti-Israel delegitimization efforts..." Of course the IAN was last year's federation-driven BDS effort -- the problem was that the federations failed in the main to financially support the effort and those which were have demanded that JFNA assume a more than substantial portion of the cost.

Then the BRIEFING cites "...the Secure Community Network, which provides real-time security monitoring and security support to communities..." as if the SCN were some new initiative. Begun during the period that Steve Hoffman served as JFNA CEO, this, too, is a federation-driven effort that gradually federations chose not to financially support. Again, the federations have demanded that JFNA assume a substantial portion of the cost. This, in JFNA-speak "evolution."

And, finally -- the laugh riot -- "...the Global Planning Table, which with our overseas partners aims to bolster funding and services for global Jewish needs." Why laughable? Follow along. The GPT "planning process" did not involve the "overseas partners" at all...not a whit. JFNA "leaders" intended to present JAFI/JDC with the usual, a fait accompli. Nowhere within the "GPT Plan" as presented at multiple regional "feedback" sessions was there a scintilla of evidence of how the GPT would "...bolster funding and services for Global Jewish needs." It's all smoke and mirrors. JFNA has no competency to accomplish these goals were they in fact the goals of the GPT.

JFNA is adrift...so it just rationalizes...at our cost and for our amusement. "Evolving?" Sure -- to what?

Rwexler

DECISION-MAKING JFNA STYLE

Decision-making at every communal and national non-profit that I have ever experienced before JFNA has been a collaborative and inclusive process, recognizing, as we have reflected upon before on these pages, that unless there is consensus, there will be deconstruction. Call it non-profit democracy, if you will. Then there's decision-making at the JFNA of today...as Andy Borowitz described another equally astonishing mediocrity, it's craptastic!!

Let me paraphrase a leader in Rochester, New York on that City's now-departed Board of Education chief: "...we had a difficult three years because (his) definition of shared decision-making was to make a decision and then share it with others." Exactly. Decisions at our precious continental organization are being made today by the smallest number of people possible -- and if the Chair had it her way (as she most often does), that smallest number would be...one. This is what happens when you are the smartest person in the room -- but even Thomas Jefferson had to share decision-making in his time.

Take the Global Planning Table "process" (yes, take it, please). When the then pre-formed GPT outcome was shared with the JFNA Executive Committee, it was rejected, with almost unanimity. But, the "decider" (under the Bushian definition) determined not only to ignore the Executive Committee discussions (probably characterizing that "debate" as just another "feedback session" even though the Chair was so off-put that during the Executive Committee deliberations, she attempted to cross-examine the CEO from JFNA's largest Dues-payer to show how much more she knows on the subject than she). The "new compromises" now on the table in the same manner as the pea in a shell game may offer comfort to some but hide the reality that JFNA's leaders persist in the belief that they "know best" as to all things,

Almost all of us know that the more owners/shareholders/members engaged (really engaged) in shared decision-making, the greater engagement and the greater support for the ultimate decisions arising out of that process. JFNA believes in something called "crowd-sourcing" in the jargon of the day -- hearing from multiple voices and choosing what sounds the best, not what is the best. This also should mean that sometimes, the pre-formed decisions of any organization's leaders will have to be set aside. The worst thing that a leader can do is to ignore the will of the membership or shortly the organization will have none.

There is nothing wrong in leaders attempting to forge consensus. What I heard during the JFNA Board meeting presentations on Wednesday demonstrated a desperation totally unbecoming leadership -- misrepresentations of facts, suppression of all facts in contradiction of the Chair's and the CEO's narrative, disregard of arguments presented at "feedback sessions'....and more of the same. This is a leadership so used to getting its way, so demanding of getting its way, that it finds it impossible to engage in fair debate...impossible to understand that an idea that they have may not be acceptable to those who own the organization.

Craptastic, indeed.

Hello?

Rwexler

THE GLOBAL FANTASY TABLE

As one insightful Commentator wrote:

"Perhaps Richard there is some room for pushback on the full barrel assault of GPT. The combined budget of our two partner agencies exceeds 600 million. The size of this sum alone calls for due diligence and input on our part and greater transparency on their part. Reviewing the programs in the 10 percent buckets and the slick and not so slick PR narratives I a non planner and aging neophyte can fill pages with questions and concerns for both agencies. Does either agency have Planning departments that rival the expertise of a NY or Chicago? (Out of fairness neither does JFNA). Do results oriented foundation find their proposals credible? Both agencies spend fortunes on resource development. Some joint expenditure and collaboration on planning wouldn't hurt."

I, with many of you, listened to and/or participated in the dictation and discussion around the Global Planning Table at the JFNA Board/Delegate Assembly meeting. After listening to the Board Chair's passionate endorsement of the GPT (which she has made up out of whole cloth) and the CEO's jargon-filled suggestion that the GPT will get us "...from where we were to where we have never been," the GPT shall going forward become the GFT -- the Global Fantasy Table.



The GFT began in February 2009 -- at a closing session of a JFNA Board Retreat where less than 100 were in attendance and from which the GFT has just grown as if a consensus supported it. In her impassioned address the Board Chair created a fantasy world -- one in which JFNA has engaged in advocacy for JAFI and JDC core allocations (it hasn't -- and never did) and one in which a $100,000,000 (++) drop in JAFI/Joint core allocations (a figure never mentioned) over the last six years was a function of nothing more than "the economy." Trust me, the only advocacy in which JFNA has engaged over the last six years has been advocacy for the GFT.

Add to this a "small framing Committee" for the GFT of representatives of 8 federations (not counting the home communities of the Chairs), the average core allocation from five of which is 4%...4%. And, no, I am not making this up. In their "imperative presentations," neither Chair nor CEO mentioned the negative feedback at the "Regional" sessions held on the GFT, nor did they comment upon or reference the unanimity of negative feedback from their own Executive Committee. Of course not; that would destroy their narrative and damage the fantasy of the GFT.

Sadly, for these leaders own ends, they continue to misinterpret the JFNA/JAFI/JDC Agreement suggesting that our two partners agreed to a GFT of JFNA's design. This is all part of the Fantasy World that the Chair and CEO have created. And, of course, there is the core fantasy -- that the GFT is not ONAD, that it will be the place to inspire and rebuild the federation system's commitment to the partners and to collective responsibility. Question: how can leaders who neither understand nor have demonstrated support for collective responsibility possibly lead let alone inspire us to these ends?

As I sat and listened to the two (and that's all there were) presentations all I can conclude is that JFNA's Chair and CEO are committed to the GFT as an end, but have no clue as to the means and, worse, not surprising to this writer, they have not listened to any feedback whatsoever that gets in the way of the Chair's demand for a GFT. This is not leadership...it is failureship. These "leaders" believe that their own "BS" -- always a dangerous thing. They can't bring themselves to think of what then end result of a GFT in their image for it will mean -- the same thing that ONAD meant. The past is prologue; and the past is ignored. Bottom line, the GFT is about nothing more than the need on the Chair's part to control all things when she and JFNA have proved that they can control nothing.

Our Commentator's conclusions are correct -- our global system could do with a greater, professional planning effort in a spirit of collaboration. The GFT will as envisioned merely drive our system further from those goals.



Rwexler

THE NEED FOR GREAT JEWISH LEADERS

Aryeh Rubin is a JTA board member, the managing partner of the Maot Group, and the founder and director of Targum Shlishi. His words below resonate in so many ways and in so many places.

Opinion: In Dire Need of Some Great American Jewish Leaders
May 11, 2011

Aryeh Rubin

"We are living in a troubling and dangerous time -- a time when we need courageous and insightful leaders more than at any point since the Holocaust. We are facing a potentially existential crisis for Israel and, ultimately, I believe, for Jewish people worldwide. Yet our leaders for the most part have not responded in a forceful way.


Those among us who understand what's at stake must light a fire under our current leaders. We also need to rethink the process of how we select our leaders and what we expect of them.

Today, we are experiencing two primary attacks. The Arab/Muslim/ Persian drive to remove Israel as a Jewish state is a fact, as is the very real threat of catastrophe that a nuclear Iran poses to Israel.

The unsettling recent events in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen and rest of the Arab world add to the instability of Israel's neighbors. Increasingly, radical Islamists, who interpret certain edicts of the Koran as instructing them to kill Jews, are directing their vitriol and hateful propaganda not solely at Israel, but at the entire Jewish people.

There is a frightening groundswell of negativity in the Western and Muslim worlds toward Israel and the Jews resulting from a deliberate, pernicious and astonishingly effective international propaganda campaign to delegitimize Israel by portraying it as a colonial implant and oppressive occupier.

Many would agree that Jewish leadership has a poor record when it comes to the perennial problems of Jewish education, assimilation and confronting modernity. Most everyone also would agree that American Jewish leadership during the Holocaust was abysmal.

Why, then, have we ignored the lessons of that era? We certainly have the wherewithal -- we have shown ourselves to be effective change agents and effective leaders in so many spheres outside of the Jewish world, from the media to medicine to the sciences to the arts and humanities. Where is our "Jewish genius?"

Mass assemblies within our communities with the stars of the Israeli lecture circuit and American political leaders might make U.S. Jews feel good, but won't make a difference -- preaching to the converted never does.

But when it comes to exercising serious power to prevent another catastrophe, our leaders have been impotent. They have adhered to an outdated model based on powerlessness despite the fact that, since the founding of the State of Israel, we now have power and a voice that potentially can be heard the world over.

I am not denying that we have an effective group in AIPAC. Paradoxically, however, no Jewish organization has succeeded when it comes to effectively lobbying the Jewish people, motivating the masses to action.

While the Arab leadership funded a well-thought-out campaign to sway the masses in Europe and the left in the United States, and while they endowed chairs on college campuses and then embedded like-minded professors sympathetic to their cause, we were marching at Israel Day parades singing "Am Yisrael Chai."

We are now playing catch-up. We finally realize what has been going on, and have been making belated attempts to fight delegitimization and promote Israel studies on college campuses.

We also must reconsider how we choose our leaders. Our decision-makers today are predominantly consensus-builders drawn from the moneyed class, many of whom are unschooled in Jewish history and ritual, often unappreciative of the mystique and grandeur of our heritage, and lacking a solid grasp of what is most beneficial for the Jewish people and for Israel.

We should choose our leaders with different criteria in mind. They should be people who are independent, creative thinkers and committed doers. They should be people of conviction and vision with the moral courage to rock the boat. We need leadership that is more diverse in terms of age and range of experience.

We are in dire need of such people, including members of the clergy, the academy and the creative community who are connected to core Jewish values, and who have empathy, wisdom and a majestic vision to be part of the power structure. Their collective experience, combined with the acumen of some current leaders, should improve decision-making and lead to better outcomes.

We cannot afford to remain silent. It is up to us to speak up, motivate and strengthen our leadership. That is our homework. Let us hope that there is still time. "



Amen.

Rwexler

THE GPT AND DISBELIEF

Today, the JFNA Board will "discuss the imperative" of the Global Planning Table.

JFNA and any number of federations seem either not to believe or not care that major mega-philanthropic families have told JFNA and their federation leaders directly that if the GPT moves forward as designed by and for JFNA, their annual campaign gifts will be lost. The unwarranted, undeserved and wholly inappropriate institutional arrogance that presaged this result would, if continued, not only doom the Global Planning Table but the very system to which these philanthropists have devoted their lives and to which their federations have been dedicated. But, knowing the makeup of the JFNA institutional "personality," the organization's "leaders" could care less. There is a lesson in this for all of us.

Because of federation backlash to the "GPT model" placed on the table at a series of "Regional feedback" sessions, the GPT, once proposed as a fait accompli, has now been relegated to the status of "work in progress" to be presented today as undefined and benign. JFNA's leaders had planned to shove this proposal down the federations' throats at the May 12 Board meeting; the "feedback" was so informed and strong, that these "leaders" decided that they would not yet risk deconstructing the system at this moment and, to their credit, took the GPT off the table for the May meeting. (The timeline for the GPT presumed a May approval. Now, it's June.)

Yet, JFNA's leaders still insist that there is some sort of "imperative" (their word) for a GPT of their design, the negative feedback notwithstanding. So they now mask their intent in benign language, by suggesting an artifice that the GPT will not be ONAD even though none of them...not one of them...experienced the waste that ONAD aforrced on JAFI/JDC and institutional jeopardy that the ONAD "process" created. ONAD was ended by the federations; now these JFNA chachams want to revive it under nothing more than another name. Read their own explanations of the "difference" and you will agree -- GPT is ONAD...only not as well thought through.

At a Chicago Federation meeting a few weeks ago, a strong supporter of JFNA observed, about a Chicago agency that receives over $1 million in annual allocations, that as "...we get no bang for the buck, we need to begin defunding." Hmmm, I thought, does this charismatic, enthusiastic, creative and informed leader ever think about the Dues we allocate to JFNA in an obscene amount given the lack of an ROI from that organization in which we have as a community invested not only tens of millions over its lifetime but so much in the way of dashed hopes?

Choosing disbelief is not an option.

Rwexler

JFNA -- THE JARGON MASTERS

You can't read anything rolling off the presses at 25 Broadway these days without a dictionary. Nothing is as it seems and nothing reads as was intended. We are overwhelmed by jargon and cliche.

Just look at the materials for the May 12 Board of Trustees meeting. Two examples suffice:

~ In her cover Memo, the Board Chair announces "...an extremely robust agenda..." -- what the hell is that? "Strong, healthy, hardy, vigorous?" Can an "agenda" be any of those things? Yes, we could have "robust debate" but that isn't the same thing is it? And that's not what JFNA's leaders want, is it? No, "robust" has now been relegated to jargon, to cliche, to a word without meaning at JFNA.

~ Then, in the Agenda itself. Describing an Agenda matter on the Global Planning Table: "A perspective on the imperative for developing the Global Planning Table, an overview of the issues critical to its success and a discussion on key strategic questions." And, just whose "perspective" is that? So far, from discussions with men and women who attended "feedback" ("they should have been called 'spoonfeed' sessions" one said) sessions, the one word, among many, that JFNA has never heard has been "imperative." Why? Because "imperative" means "absolutely necessary or required; unavoidable." Perhaps, in the jargon of JFNA, the noun definition applies -- "a command." The monarchy dictates the command and we are required to have a GPT. So, as I read the Agenda, someone or ones will tell us why we must have a GPT, this GPT and the "feedback" (almost completely negative)...ignored. That's the imperative.

~ The Global Planning Table materials for the JFNA Board Meeting distributed by e-mail from the Board Chair yesterday -- and asking for comments, if any, to be sent to her -- are now so parve as to suggest that the GPT will be totally benign. Second Membership Criterion as a condition of participation -- not even a mention (just an aside that a collective allocation will be a requirement of participation). Hidden behind the jargon remains the basic deconstruction of the collective system that has ennobled the federation system. It remains clear that this leadership still has no clue what "collective responsibility" means. Those who participated in the so-called "Feedback sessions" were told that minutes were being taken of each such session -- why not distribute those?

Oh, yes, the Agenda indicates that the Board will appropriately honor the outgoing Chairs of Young Leadership and the National Campaign Chair (who at some point agreed that we are no longer in the "Campaign business" -- we are in something called, in JFNA jargon, Philanthropic Resources).

Rwexler

CATCHING UP...YET AGAIN

~ Is there a major federation out there that is now "counting" funds raised by Birthright for Birthright within its federation geographic limits as part of its Annual Campaign statistics? And does the amount approach or exceed $2 million? Just how does that work? The federation didn't raise the money; the federation didn't allocate the money; the federation just counts the money as if it did both? Do lay leaders who actually sacrifice to make their pledges to the federation actually believe this legerdemain? I'm thinking: isn't this exactly what JFNA does? In both instances, taking credit for the money is a lot easier than raising it, isn't it?

~ I don't wish to brag or anything, but, why not? I read the JFNA 2010 Annual Report (always a hyperbolic laugh riot) and realized, once again, the incredible contribution my federation, Chicago, has played in framing so many of the very few JFNA Programs for which that organization claims credit: the National Jewish Federation Bond Program, the Secure Community Network (patterned after a Chicago initiative), the Israel Action Network to fight BDS, among others. It makes one scratch one's head and ask "why" Chicago lay and/or professional leaders were excluded from the "small internal committee" that framed the fiasco that is the Global Planning Table "process" (while representatives of communities which have objected to JFNA Dues were). Then again...

~ You aren't supposed to know this -- JFNA's "leaders" have disclosed to the Budget & Finance Committee, among other things, the following unfavorable variances to Budget projected through the end of the Fiscal Year: a $182,000 over-expenditure in travel, a $253,000 shortfall from the New Orleans GA, another $275,000 overage from the Lion of Judah Conference, and, of course, a $253,000 loss on the historic TribeFest -- all of this in addition to Dues shortfalls estimated at close to another quarter of a million dollars. But, fear not, for the Budget also included a $400,000 "Contingency" (one insider told me that JFNA "...has no Budget reserve" -- OK, what's this $400,000 [that will increase to $600,000 next year?]) Or, fear....the non-payment of Dues keeps increasing -- an accrued $465,000 and another $489,000 in 2010-2011 -- that's close to $1,000,000 in unpaid Dues. And, what's the nonpayment estimated for 2011-2012? Another $471,000. And what are JFNA's "leaders" doing about all of this? JFNA promises to raise money independently to support its Budget in 2011-2012 in violation of every principle of a funded membership organzation. Oh, and all of this is allegedly "confidential." Crazy.

~ Not so crazy. JFNA's few "leaders," in a desperate attempt to keep the GPT alive in some form, have reached out to a few lay persons in communities which have objected to the Table as designed, seeking their support, arguing "save us from ourselves," or similar. They have found a few willing, perhaps with reluctance, perhaps not, to support "compromise," apparently willing to put their "future" in leadership of JFNA above not just principle but their communities' historic commitment to collective responsibility and the timeless principles upon which our system has been built. Sh'lom bayit trumps principle and our communal values? Funny, in a way -- these communal leaders are being influenced by those who never understood that responsibility or those principles -- and sad.

Rwexler

A DISAGREEMENT WITH RESPECT

I often exchange substantive correspondence with a terrific federation CEO for whom I have the greatest respect. Most recently, just before Pesach, we engaged in an internal "debate" over the "value" of the GPT, his view, or the lack thereof, mine. Our discussion won't be repeated here (except in part below), but trust me when I write that it was executed with mutual respect -- something that is unknown, unfortunately, to JFNA's lay leaders these past six years.

As we closed our discussion, here is what this leader wrote: "Richard -- one final note. This exchange we've had should be occurring at the highest levels of JFNA, with multiple federations across the country and with our next gen leaders -- the national conversation that Steve Windmueller and others have suggested. If it were, a lot of these issues would have been resolved and we'd be talking about less mundane matters, like whether you like your matzo balls firm or fluffy..." I responded with my 100% agreement (and, N.B., "that I like mine firm with a bit of fluffy").

But, our leaders deride debate; they abhor debate; debate conflicts too often with their narrative, their opinion and their "facts." To me, debate is a building block to consensus; to JFNA's leaders, consensus is what they say it is on any given day. These "leaders" fail to comprehend that their dictatorial methodology -- one that shuts out all questions and all debate until now -- has placed the institution that we created and that we, the federations, own, at the very precipice of a disaster from which it is likely it will not recover.

Rwexler

AN EXPERT'S VIEW OF THE GLOBAL PLANNING TABLE

As regular readers know I frequently receive an opinion piece from readers so insightful and spot on as to merit inclusion as a Post. What follows came "over the transom" from a highly respected national leader who has reviewed the Global Planning Table proposals from the first presentations through the "feedback sessions" to today. Her/his analysis follows:

"Dear Richard:

Despite the enormous expenditure within the JFNA budget to support the Israel and Overseas professional efforts, the sophistication of the allocations departments of federations such as New York, Chicago, Baltimore, etc. far outstrip the technical expertise resident in JFNA. These federation departments understand that building innovative programs require strong partnership predicated upon trust, predictability of funding, and most importantly directed towards providing solutions for resonating Jewish needs.

The many weaknesses associated with the Global Planning Table concept are too numerous to describe in one e-mail, but I want to point out a few.

1. Sophisticated federations will not want to cede 'hard to raise' donor funds to a national organization that serves no real purpose other than to reallocate funds to those organizations that the small group of leaders feels are more important than the historic federation partners, JDC and JAFI. These federations already have the option to do so without forwarding the funds to JFNA and support what probably will be another layer of overhead/cost.

2. Over the last 15 years, while federation allocations to JAFI/JDC/Israel have declined, Israeli institutions have successfully raised enormous dollars outside the federation system. The federation market share decline in terms of overseas funding is stunning, at the very least. And that was one of the basic reasons for the merger of UJA/CJF. The planning table does not address the notion of market share in the least but rather establishes a bureaucratic response with no fundraising drivers. Yet the above mentioned federations have, for the most part, fashioned their own solution set that has resulted in increased overseas allocations and increased federation annual campaigns by old fashioned needs based fundraising that relies on the programs of JAFI/JDC. That's their plan and it is working.

3. There are no revenue projections attached to the formation of the Global Planning Table initiative. In other words, there is no accountability or measurement for success. Clearly, this would require a level of decisiveness and justification that has been absent at the national level. Yet, most federation boards would never approve any expenditure or allocation without a cost/benefit analysis. The risks are too great.

4. Squandering resources in the not for profit world takes on many shapes. The sheer amount of lay leadership resources, time and money, that was wasted on the ONAD process will never be recovered. This doesn't even address the amount of money spent by JDC and JAFI to defend their allocations during the same period. It's as if the professional/lay leadership has collective amnesia.

The template for needs assessment already exists within the board rooms of JDC and JAFI. Top lay leadership from a broad cross section of North American federations already sit around the JAFI and JDC tables and debate resource allocations and challenges facing the Jewish people while never forgetting their fiduciary responsibilities. The officers and many of the JFNA Board members participate on a regular basis in decision making in both JAFI and JDC. The Global Planning Table creates an institutional redundancy without an articulated financial goal. Does this make sense?"

My/our thanks. As always, my fear is that no "leader" at JFNA, if they would read this analysis, will understand it.

Rwexler

LETTER TO JERRY...AGAIN

Although a technically competent reader was able to translate the final paragraphs of my "Letter to Jerry" Post yesterday (See Comments), I am trying again:

Dear Jerry,

As you have told me, you don't read this Blog (why ruin an otherwise good day?) unless someone brings it to your attention. My hope is that either one of your staff will forward this Post to you or that, through some inadvertent, unconscious act, you will come upon it yourself.

I don't ask that you read any prior Posts, Jerry, that would be too much to expect. What I would ask you to read would be the Comments (almost all Anonymous) because there are lessons to be learned from men and women far more articulate and on point than I. These Comments suggest that JFNA is floundering, Jerry, awash in trivial pursuits while federations and donors and the Next Generations of our leaders want substance and relevance instead of pandering and patronizing. I have heard that you want to bring to your staff the best and brightest who, hopefully, will make of JFNA a laboratory for new ideas and bold experiments. Yet, I haven't seen a single example in the past few months of even one such hire while JFNA is threatened with a brain drain in its most critical areas of need. You have visited, at last count, 78(+) federations and I applaud you for those visits and for the connections you have made with the owners and a few major donors. Yet, what are you doing in response to their asks of JFNA? What are the messages you have brought back to 25 Broadway? If the messages are that the federations want more #ish, more Heroes, more TribeFest and more Sheatufim and less FRD help, less direct intervention, less infusion of the federations with the best practices of others, then I would submit to you that you haven't been listening at all.

I know of your respect for Les Wexner and the counsel you have taken from him -- often reduced to the mantra "...what got us here won't get us there." I would subscribe to the same counsel, Jerry, but first isn't it mandatory to know "what got us here," the great, the good, the bad? I don't believe, with Itzik Shavit, z"l, gone, there is a single person, lay or professional, among JFNA's extremely constricted leadership, who has a clue as to what the core values and timeless principles upon which the federation system (and, for the matter, JFNA at its beginning) was built. Instead, you and your lay leaders have gone about building something "new" based upon marketing and branding -- you can't build a firm foundation on a slippery slope, my friend.

A few weeks ago The New York Times profiled Howard Schultz in its Sunday Business Section -- "A Changed Starbucks, A Changed CEO." There is much in that article that is as instructive as have been your meetings and discussions with Wexner. For example:

~ "His goals (for what Schultz called a "transformational agenda") were to fix troubled stores, to rekindle an emotional attachment with customers and to make longer term changes like reorganizing executives..."

~ The company's CFO said that "[W]hat the company needed then was what he used to be to us -- the innovator, the refusal to not be a champion."

~ The CFO continued: "Delegating and accepting other people's conclusions, is now easier for him. 'There's been more arguing, challenging and debate in the last two to three years than there's ever been.'"

~ Schultz: "What leadership means is the courage it takes to talk about things that, in the past, perhaps we wouldn't have, because I'm not right all of the time." Hello!!!

~ A keen observer of the company concluded: "[T]here's a kind of dissonance between the messaging and the actual practice." Hello and hello, again.

There are some things I know you can do. The first of which might be to stop playing to the crowd -- telling 'em what you think they want to hear. For example, at a meeting in Dallas a few weeks ago you found a good applause line -- "...we need to find a new way to connect with Israel." Sounds great, apparently...but only to communities that don't "connect" through Missions, through JAFI and the Joint, through Birthright, through the IAI and the IAN, through multiple existing portals. Do you even realize the insecurity statements like these can create among those you and the Board Chair often call "partners?" Do you even care at this point? Or is it all about patronizing and pandering, full of sound and fury (and cliche), signifying nothing?

What you may have meant is that "we," whoever "we" are ("you're not JFNA") need to find a way to connect period -- and "we" will, through the GPT??!! It's truly sad that you apparently place no value on our real, working connections, no connections with the bridges we have built and continue to.

You know that I love your optimism. To realize upon that will require that you demand a lay leadership that understands the needs of our federations and then that you quietly advise your lay leadership that responding to those needs is what JFNA must be about. For the past six years we have seen JFNA leaders whose pursuit of their personal agendas and vendettas threaten the very existence of JFNA itself. You have to surround yourself with a new set of lay leaders who, with the support of the federation CEOs can lead JFNA out of
the darkness in into the light.

You can this. Can't you?

Warmest regards,

Richard

WITH APOLOGIES

My apologies that the letter to Jerry Post first had a font issue and, then, though it appears perfectly in Edit mode, I am unable to publish the full Post. I will publish that Post in full toimorrow.

DEAR JERRY...

Dear Jerry,

As you have told me, you don't read this Blog (why ruin an otherwise good day?) unless someone brings it to your attention. My hope is that either one of your staff will forward this Post to you or that, through some inadvertent, unconscious act, you will come upon it yourself.

I don't ask that you read any prior Posts, Jerry, that would be too much to expect. What I would ask you to read would be the Comments (almost all Anonymous) because there are lessons to be learned from men and women far more articulate and on point than I. These Comments suggest that JFNA is floundering, Jerry, awash in trivial pursuits while federations and donors and the Next Generations of our leaders want substance and relevance instead of pandering and patronizing. I have heard that you want to bring onto your staff the best and brightest who, hopefully, will make of JFNA a laboratory for new ideas and bold experiments. Yet, I haven't seen a single example in the past few months of even one such hire while JFNA is threatened with a brain drain in its most critical areas of need. You have visited, at last count, 78 (+) federations and I applaud you for those visits and for the connections you have made with the owners and with a few major donors. Yet, what are you doing in response to their asks of JFNA? What are the messages you have brought back to 25 Broadway? If the messages are that the federations want more #ish, more Heroes, more TribeFest, more Sheatufim and less FRD help, less direct intervention, less infusion of the federations with the best practices of others. then I would submit to you that you haven't been listening at all.

I know of your respect for Les Wexner and the counsel which you have taken from him -- often reduced to the mantra "what got us here, won't get us there." I would subscribe to the same counsel, Jerry, but first isn't it mandatory to know "what got us here," the great, the good, the bad? I don't believe, with Itzik Shavit, z'l, gone, there is a person, lay or professional, among JFNA's narrowly constricted leadership, who has a clue as to what the core values and timeless principles upon which the federation system (and, for that matter, JFNA at the beginning) was built. Instead, you and your lay leaders have gone about building something "new" based on marketing and branding -- you can't build a firm foundation on a slippery slope, my friend.

A few weeks ago The New York Times profiled Howard Schultz in its Sunday Business Section -- "A Changed Starbucks, A Changed CEO." There is much in that article that is as instructive as have been your meetings and discussions with Wexner. For example:

~ "His goals(for what Schultz called a "transformational agenda") were to fix troubled stores, to rekindle an emotional attachment with customers and to make longer term changes like reorganizing executives..."

~ The company's CFO said that "[W]hat the company needed then was what he used to be to us -- the innovator, the refusal to not be a champion."

~ The CFO continued: "Delegating and accepting other people's conclusions, is now easier for him. 'There's been more arguing, challenging and debate in the last two to three years than there's ever been.'"

~ Schultz: "What leadership means is the courage it takes ti talk about things that, in the past, perhaps we wouldn't have, because I'm not right all of the time." Hello!!!

~ A keen observer of the company concluded "[T]here's a kind of dissonance between the messaging and the actual practice." Hello and hello, again.

There are some things I know you can do. The first of which might be to stop playing to the crowd -- telling 'em what you think they want to hear. For example, at a meeting in Dallas a few weeks ago you found a good applause line -- "...we need to find a new way to connect with Israel." Sounds great, apparently...but only to communities that don't "connect" through Missions, through JAFI and the Joint, through Birthright, through the IAI and the IAN, through multiple portals. Do you even realize the insecurity statements like thses can create among those you and the Board Chair often call "partners?" Do you care at this point? Or is this all about patroninzing and pandering, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?


What you may have meant is that "we," whoever "we" are ( "you're not JFNA") need to find a way to connect period -- and "we" will, through the GPT??!! It's truly sad that you apparently place no value on on our real, our working connections, no connections with the bridges we have built and continue to.


You know that I love your optimism. To realize upon that will require that you demand a lay leadership that understands the needs of our federations and then that you quietly advise your lay leadership that responding to those needs is what JFNA must be about. For the past six years we have seen JFNA too often pursue the personal agendas of a small group of misguided lay leaders whose pursuit of their personal agendas and vendettas threaten the very existence of JFNA itself. You have to surround yourself with a new set of lay leaders who, with the support of the federation CEOs can lead JFNA out of the darkness into the light.

You can do this. Can't you?

Warmest regards,

Richard