I will try to be more careful.
"Richard I believe that you are well intentioned (mostly) as are some (not all) of your anonymous responders but you need to stop using LCE as a blanket term. There are 19 large city Execs and only a small handful with any real system clout. You also have a small number of lay leaders who act on their own without knowledge or consideration of the impact of their decisions or non-decisions. When you make blanket indictments you hurt those who want change but cannot effect change."
I know, we all do in fact, that what this Anonymous Commentator wrote is true. I have been in the room with many of these same guys (at a time they were all "guys") and they could hardly agree among themselves to the meaning of "federation" then -- no doubt less so now -- and most are risk averse. Over the course of writing this Blog, I have heard from some Large City Executives directly, met with others, who would explain that without the support and leadership of LCE X or LCE Y or LCE Z, nothing will change; they can effect no changes; and they would not go public; they also said that with the leadership and support of LCE X, Y or Z, change could and would be almost immediate. But, sadly, there should be no expectation that X, Y or Z will be doing any leading to change. They haven't and they won't.
Another anonymous Comment suggested one step that might be taken:
"It's a shame that none of those not part of the handful don't take some of their own action along with their community. Or maybe they are and not being vocal about it. I can think of several things they could do even without clout. One example - Let JFNA know that their community is reducing dues until ABC happens. If A happens they will increase a portion of the withheld dues. If B also happens an additional portion and so forth. I'm sure that the creative minds of the remaining 15-16 people can come up with other things they can do besides sit by passively and do nothing. Or if they are doing something they should be more vocal about it. They have more power than they think. They are only beholden to their local community. Do they really think their local community will remove them from their positions if they take a meaningful stand on JFNA contrary to the views of the few with clout?"
I have presumed on what I know to be the intelligence and knowledge of you the readers of this Blog. I believe you know that consistent with the "golden rule," I hold those professional leaders of the largest Dues-paying communities responsible for the deep, deep hole which they have helped the chachams at JFNA dig. They, of all people, no how bad things are. They are the ones I am writing about; they are the ones who could and should make a difference. But they are also the ones who are running JFNA from their positions of comfort in their home federations. They are the Wizards of Oz behind the darkened curtain. And, to a person they would deny it -- wink, wink.
If there is any hope at all for change, it is embodied in a new "group" who, if they choose, could inspire others to change -- I am talking about a Marc Terrill and a Jay Sanderson, and others who know what they see and, in my experience are not abashed in speaking out. I am talking about the still fresh New York UJA's Eric Goldstein, who may take a careful look at how his community's $5,135,000 in Dues are wasted year-in and year-out and, unlike his predecessor, say "what the hell?"
On the lay side, it is so much harder to see, let alone hear, voices demanding change. On all sides, if you know women and men who can no longer abide a system that serves only itself, its "brand," worthless though that brand may be, give me their names off-line and I will reach out to them. Some of you have already done so, and I have spoken with many of you, but it is not yet a group of sufficient size to constitute what we need, a movement. But, with your help, we can get there...we will get there.
As Nelson Mandela said: "It always seems impossible until it is done."