Friday, June 27, 2014


I guess I could have titled this Post "What Did You Expect?" or "We Really Didn't Mean It" or something other but the above will do -- for this is the story of the Global Planning Table's toe dip into the waters of allocations advocacy. You didn't notice, you say. That's OK. Because, really, they didn't want you to. Oh, sure, the JFNA Co-Chairs with CEO What's-a-Core-Allocation-Anyway? sent a Briefing in early 2014 indicating their commitment to increased core allocation funding and urging federations to increase theirs, they then permitted the inane GPT to usurp core allocations advocacy...appoint a Committee (or Work Group or whatever they call it) with a strong and respected Chair and, then...almost

This became another example of what happens with our continental organization. You may remember that we pointed out early on in this "process" that there was an inherent conflict between the Global Planning Table's determination to raise $500,000 from ten federations as a condition precedent to each Strategic Initiative (stay tuned for that condition to be abandoned) and advocacy for increased core allocations. But...never mind. You see, while there is some hortatory language, somewhere, in the GPT go-forward on the Signature Initiatives that the money for the Initiative be "over and above" current allocations, I have been at those meetings and I've seen the low- or no-allocating communities just roll their eyes and use the core allocations as an ATM machine for funding new or current ventures.

Instead of meaningful allocations advocacy, the GPT has done nothing more than sit by and watch as communities have gone through their allocations processes, reduce the core allocations and focus in many instances on increasing designated project funding or changing the "split" -- you will learn, probably only after another pathetic cash effort at calendar year-end, that in a year in which aggregate campaigns have increased, albeit minimally, aggregate allocations will have reduced to new historic lows. From JFNA the annual crocodile tears will flow...and little else.

While shameful, there is no shame. Allocations advocacy? That was the GPT, not JFNA. Onward.



Anonymous said...

I am a JDC Board Member. Like most of my fellow Board members, we have had it with JFNA. If they are not duplicitous by constantly promising change and delivering none, then they are more inept than I and others have ever dealt with, listened to or wanted to believe.

We understand that we are on our own. We will act accordingly. There is no system left. These people, these leaders, have killed it.

Anonymous said...

Richard- What are your thoughts on the small movement of federations that are de-affiliating with JFNA?

RWEX said...

To Anon 2 -- I know nothing of this? Tell us more if you can.

Anonymous said...

As a Board member of a Large City Fed I would vote for our disaffiliation. We are paying a high six figures in Dues that is paying for literally nothing but Lions and Cabinet membership. It's a helluva price to pay for meaningless and costly "membership." My belief is that my CEO is intimidated by other CEOs.

Anonymous said...

Richard, I see that the anonymous Commentator who suggested that there are federations who are leaving JFNA has not responded to your request for examples. I don;t believe there are any voluntarily leaving or that person would have provided examples

Anonymous said...

The fact that JFNA or the Global Planning Table "head-faked" any involvement in allocations advocacy should have come as no surprise to anyone -- certainly not to the Jewish Agency or Joint. All that JFNA/GPT wanted was that neither of those organizations approach communities directly..and, to major extent, they succeeded. They are fools -- all of them