Sunday, October 4, 2015

DO THEY SPEAK FOR YOU? DO THEY SPEAK AT ALL?

Speaking of having no "voice" on our behalf...

1. And you thought JFNA had no opinion on the Iran deal...On September 9 the forever useless FedWorld "announced" in its preface: "JFNA chair Michael Siegal discusses why so many in the Jewish community are wary of the Iran nuclear agreement" citing a nonsensical "analysis" by the JFNA Board Chair that appeared in JNS. So here is that insightful aid provided by our Chair:
“Viscerally, when some regime says ‘Death to Israel,’ and they say, ‘death to America,’ and in many case say, ‘Death to Jews,’ our history does not allow us to ignore it,” Michael Siegal, chair of the board of trustees for the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA), told JNS.org.
JFNA has refrained from taking a position for or against the deal, instead choosing to facilitate the efforts of the more than 150 local Jewish Federations under its umbrella."  
What can one say other than, thanks a lot Michael for the brilliance...the insight...and the "facilitation." JFNA speaks...and says...nothing at all. There's no sense of shame there; in fact, reading the New Year's bloviation from CEO Jerry, made me reflect upon this fact -- every conference call that JFNA co-convened featured exclusively a supporter (or framer) of the Iran Deal (other than Dennis Ross who "cautioned" against the Deal and Robert Satloff who clearly was warned to not state his own opinion of it). Was this done because JFNA was told that if JFNA came out against the deal, it would be "punished" by taking away its "co-convenor" status? That Siegal wouldn't "question" the President on one of those calls? That Jerry's multiple invites to the White House might cease? Or am I being just too cynical?


2. And then there's JCPA. A long, long time ago, as I served as Chair of my community's Jewish Community Relations Counsel, and for a while thereafter, when I served on the Board and Executive Committee of what was then the NJCRAC, now the JCPA, I grew increasingly frustrated and impatient (surprise, I know) with the seemingly endless processing of every issue, the seemingly constant parsing of every position back then. Dear friends and lay leaders whom I venerate to this day -- Shoshana Cardin, Maynard Wishner, z'l, Jackie Levine, Arden Shenker and many others -- guided me through the NJCRAC maze. And I developed a great friendship with one of our system's best professionals, the late Al Chernin, z'l,  a pro's pro, with whom one could disagree in the search for common ground without alienation.

Then, there's today. There seems to be no process at JCPA: its chief professional signs petitions the subjects of which may be inconsistent with national consensus; votes are made (at, e.g., the Conference of Presidents) which may not represent the organizations that are its constituency; and its President, at least, appears to have an opinion on every issue, always available to the Jewish press. What used to be a cumbersome, lengthy deliberative process now appears to be no process whatsoever. Yet, on the most critical issues that confront our system today -- silence.

Here is the JCPA Mission Statement:

"The Mission of the JCPA

The mission of the Council is to serve as the representative voice of the organized American Jewish community in addressing the principal mandate of the Jewish community relations field, expressed in three interrelated goals:

  1. To safeguard the rights of Jews here and around the world;


  2. To dedicate ourselves to the safety and security of the state of Israel;


  3. To protect, preserve and promote a just American society, one that is democratic and pluralistic, one that furthers harmonious interreligious, inter ethnic interracial and other intergroup relations."
When a diligent researcher took a look at those who enjoyed the most visits at this White House, you should know that JCPA's then President was right up there with the other "most important people." If only the White House knew.

Then, there's money. JCPA is a member in good standing of the Federation-National Agency Alliance, that most woebegone of entities under the JFNA umbrella. It receives one of the largest allocations of federation dollars of any funded national agency and, in addition, it has been the recipient of millions in its role as JFNA's operating partner in the "Israel Action Network." There would be an excellent place for a rigorous audit of how our communal dollars have been spent. Yet, with all of these fund sources, JCPA today has begun a search for an FRD Director apparently to raise funds from within the federation system that currently provides it with its resources. Does JFNA know anything about this? Do the federations? Does anyone bloody care?

Rabbi Steve Gutow served JCPA as its President with distinction for a decade  and announced his retirement a while ago. Steve's liberal background appeared to serve his similarly leaning leadership as they had wished. Yet, as the community relations field, along with our Jewish polity, moved from left to center and, now, evermore toward the right of center, JCPA seemed not to be able to move with it. It will be interesting to learn of the results of JCPA's search for Gutow's successor.

Is JCPA fulfilling its role? And...what exactly is that? Rhetorical questions. BTW, JCPA couldn't even claim Michael Siegal's insights with regard to the Iran "deal;" had they, it's fair to ask, would Rabbi Gutow have been appointed just days ago by President Obama to the President's "Faith Council?" Just asking.

Rwexler




19 comments:

Anonymous said...

What do you expect JFNA to say? Haven't we been down this road, several times, on your blog, Richard? Do you really expect all the federations to line up in single formation behind some new leader, who has a single successful vision of what our communities and federations should say? It's not viable. And it shouldn't be viable. Chicago ain't L.A., L.A. ain't DC, and DC ain't New York. So why are you pushing for a JFNA statement?

Anonymous said...

Maybe Richard, who can speak for himself and has, actually, remembers the time not that long ago that CJF/federations annually adopted a series of Resolutions at the GA that set forth the Jewish communities' positions on a variety of relevant issues, many controversial. That Resolutions process was staffed by what is now JCPA and engaged federation lay and professional leaders. There was no one then who thought that there should be no Resolutions process -- although a number of Resolutions were tabled for a lack of consensus.

Today and for the past years there has been no such process because there has been no leadership thanks to the attitude of people like the Anonymous above who believe that we have no system at all and then set out to prove it.

Anonymous said...

JFNA clearly has expressed at least one opinion -- its support for the Iran deal. And, how did they express it? By naming one Alan Solow as Co-Chair of this year's GA: the same Solow who was a major "bundler" for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012; the same Solow who was elected Chair of the Conference of Presidents over more qualified candidates strictly because of his tightness with Obama; the same Solow who attacked those who opposed the Iran Deal in the most ugly and un-Jewish language. Yes, that Alan Solow. And that is JFNA's personified statement supporting a "deal" most of its owners oppose. Maybe Solow will introduce the Prime Minister at the GA.

bob hyfler said...

To some the Prime Minister of Israel is a lonely and courageous truth teller on the world stage; to others among us he is an ineffective narcissist. I am also told that a similarly split verdict exists on the virtues of the President of the United States.These are interesting and appropriate arguments in certain rooms and certain forums and I as others do
welcome the debate. Richard will determine whether this blog is such a forum. However, as I have written elsewhere, many political debates are best left at the Federation board room door except under the most unusual of circumstances.I therefore personally applaud the position of restraint taken by JFNA and a number of Federations.

Anonymous said...

Factual error, Richard. JFNA hosted a webcast with Netanyahu, the most vocal opponent of the Iran Deal. Also, while to this day Satloff has not stated his support or opposition to the deal, on the JFNA webcast, one would not have to read too deeply between the lines to see his deep skepticism of the deal.

Anonymous said...

To the Anon at 1:02 -- thankfully those days are long gone. No federation would allow a "system" that is unrepresentative to set Resolutions that compel us.
And seriously, do you think that the reason "there has been no such process" is because of the attitude of the Anon at 8:09? That's a bit ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 8:09 here (I can defend myself, but thanks).

I don't believe that we have no system at all and I'm not setting out to prove it.

I'm just sick and tired of unrepresentative right-wing "leaders" who confuse unity with uniformity. I don't need to talk like you, act like you, and obey your commands to be part of the same community and respect your leadership. For you to demand my allegiance based on some ludicrous expectation of 'consensus'statements ridicules the pluralism and diversity of the Jewish community.

Oh, and it's probably why we lost so many young (and not-so-young) Jews in the process.

You don't speak for them, and you don't speak for me.

RWEX said...

First to the Anonymous Commentator who wished to post a vivid attack on a GA Co-Chair and his relationship with the President: (a) while I like the imagery (b) there is no way that Alan could possibly get his head into the position you suggest and (c) I have rejected your Comment.

Second, I will no longer accept Comments from those who characterize those with whom they disagree as "unrepresentative right-wing 'leaders' who confuse unity with uniformity," Those characterizations are part of the reason that consensus has become nigh impossible to reach.

RWEX said...

First to the Anonymous Commentator who wished to post a vivid attack on a GA Co-Chair and his relationship with the President: (a) while I like the imagery (b) there is no way that Alan could possibly get his head into the position you suggest and (c) I have rejected your Comment.

Second, I will no longer accept Comments from those who characterize those with whom they disagree as "unrepresentative right-wing 'leaders' who confuse unity with uniformity," Those characterizations are part of the reason that consensus has become nigh impossible to reach.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand. Why this emphasis on consensus? Why not celebrate diversity?

Anonymous said...

it's the characterizations that are the problem? Are you sure you're reading the Anon right?

Anonymous said...

The differences between then (CJF) and now ()JFNA) include: then, leaders knew how to build consensus; today, not a clue as to how to go about it; then, there was a greater sense of unity among the federations; today, there is a strong sense of "bowling alone;" then, lay and professional leaders enjoyed the process and challenges of developing consensus; today, there is a basic laziness, a feeling that it's just not worth our time.

Building consensus was one believed to be part of system-building; today, there are no leaders who even understand their responsibilities to what once was a beautiful system. As I read it, Richard's Post was both about the Iran Deal and about every aspect of social policy on which JFNA has nothing to say. It is a low point.

Anonymous said...

It isn't worth our time. But that doesn't mean it's laziness.

Perhaps building consensus was once believed to be part of system-building. But thank goodness it's not the case anymore. We don't need to enjoy 'the process and challenges of developing consensus.' Why do you think so many younger people just don't care about what we used to offer?

Anonymous said...

Don't you think that consensus is difficult to reach because blogs like yours print allusions to despicable slurs on people like the GA Co-Chair and then jokingly laugh it off? Who would want to reach consensus in a situation like that? No thank you.

Anonymous said...

To anon 1:56 who thinks young people don't value consensus building: perhaps you should reflect on the experiences of the Israeli social protest movement or Occupy in America where acheiving honest SUBSTANTIVE consensus is both process and goal. Its the manipulative contentless activities of Federation committees that turn them off.

Anonymous said...

Right ... because both those movements lasted so long and attracted so many. Oh, wait. They didn't.

Anonymous said...

Mr Wexler:

While you may perceive that the Jewish communal world has veered "center-right", that is hardly a universal sentiment. Of the "traditional" Jewish organizations, etc. perhaps you are right, perhaps not. But either way you are missing out on the newer players who may not be from your way of thinking.

RWEX said...

I have not "perceived" anything more than that the system is no longer interested in building consensus or even trying to and certainly to in categorization ("center-right," left, right or in a circle) according to the perceptions of some.

Anonymous said...

As Bobby Zimmerman of Camp Herzl said: "don't criticise what you can't understand, your sons and your daughter's are beyond your command...so get out of the way if you can't lend a hand..."