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
Richard- this is happening even on a local federation level. They want their boards and executive committees to be "rubber stamps" to their policies and how dare anyone appose it -- if they do then they are marginalized. (I believe you can call yourself exhibit A). I firmly believe it is because they see debating as a "waste of time" and the brilliant federation pro's know how it is going to end, so lets just go with their way from the beginning. If only these pros (nationally and locally) know that these people that care enough to debate are leaving the federation system for good....
ReplyDeleteRichard,
ReplyDeleteOf course the JFNA "leaders" don't want debate -- look at what happened with the Global Planning Table at the alleged "feedback sessions" (where no written materials were distributed -- I am surprised they allowed note-taking)-- federation leaders and major donors pushwed back. Oh My God!! Pushback!! And negative pushback at that. Can you blame them?
Those of us who have been around for a very long time know that the major decision makers and/or influential power brokers reside in at most 10 federations and probably even a smaller number than that. Where does this group stand on the myriad of issues that have been raised over the years by this blog and countless others who are less influential? Why are they not taking a stand and leading some type of effort to change the continual bad behavior of JFNA, or perhaps they are but we don't know about it.
ReplyDeleteRichard, you would do a real service to those of us who fall in the category of leaders in our communities but mostly without any real power at the national level to bring about change, if you would enlighted us on where the lay and professional leaders of Baltimore, NY, Cleveland, Detroit and Chicago are. I would even consider expanding this analysis to include Miami, Atlanta and Boston. While other large cities may have a lot of clout, they appear to be in too much flux at the moment to really be focused on the national issues.
If your analysis reveals that there is hope of an uprising and serious pushback it would help serve as a rallying force to many of us.
10? mored like three maybe even two who have the clout and the credibility to make whatever needs to happen occur. However if they do so they would have to take responsibility in time and thought for what comes next and my gut tells me each has other more pressing (local) fish to fry.
ReplyDeleteLot negotiated with G-d and got the number down to 10 in order to save the people of Sodom and Gemorrah. Even that was too high a number and we know how that eneded. I was beginning at that level with the hope that perhaps we could find 10 communities with leadership that would/could step up. But alas Anonymous 4 is probably correct.
ReplyDeleteSorry about the mis-reference to Lot. Of course it was Abraham.
ReplyDeleteWhether it's 2 or 4 or 10, there are serious men and women in the communities. The larger the donor, the less chance that that donor will be marginalized. Of course I know many leaders within the federations -- as do each of you. We have seen, in just the last few weeks, in the context of the GPT what lay leaders can and will accomplish when they see outcomes that would, in their opinion, deconstruct our system and the many things to which they have been historically committed; much to the chagrin of the monarchy.
ReplyDeleteI am afraid the marginalized larger donors just get frustrated and slowly stop showing up to meetings and stop increasing their gift... Then they find another organization to share their talents with.
ReplyDeleteI am one of those "major" donors. These people are so out of touch; they believe that having ignored us for years, they can just call us (or have our federation President call)up and ask us to attend meetings and events with neither purpose nor agenda -- believing we are as stupid as they.
ReplyDeleteI have asked my federation professional why we are wasting millions on this organization. He responds: "Because we need a strong national system." I ask: "So do we have one?"
Others are asking as well.