I recognize this letter to you upon your assuming the lay leadership of JFNA is presumptuous...but that's me!! I wish you well and every success. You come to this position with a perspective denied to your predecessor -- an experience with JFNA that Michael Siegal lacked; I know that you will use that experience well.
I recently read the following: A great American leader "...said that the only safe ship in a storm is leadership. In a crisis, leaders need to know what they stand for, and they need the guidance that comes from being clear about their own values." Knowing you from your accomplished leadership and learning from you of your leadership values, forgive me but I, all of us, expect great leadership from you from Day 1 of your Terms. You know what you stand for; and you know what JFNA can/must be...but isn't. I have walked proudly in your shoes. Before I assumed my years of Chairmanship, I watched my predecessors in one instance mismanage the lay-professional relationship. I learned the wrong way and determined that I would lead the right way. Please lead us in the right way. Over the last decade I have seen one ill-advised hiring decision after another...and I have observed the consequences of those decisions for an organization that must succeed. And, nothing is done.
Richard, effecting change at JFNA should not be the Sisyphean task that it has appeared to be. It's not impossible; it's merely that some have made it appear so. Among UJA leadership way back when we had a commitment; we would debate all things, and then we would unite behind our Chair. Under Siegal, leaders might debate -- but always behind closed doors ("breach the pact of Confidentiality and you are dead to us") -- but then it became clear that the Chair lacked the necessary support to, e.g., do anything of substance. So, Michael abandoned his own values and did nothing.
The so-called "JFNA Advisory Council" appears to be the Jewish organizational equivalent of the Congressional "Freedom Caucus" -- they have arrogated the power of JFNA governance to themselves and then have done nothing with it other than to frustrate change. With great respect, Richard, I would urge you, should you choose to perpetuate the "Advisory Council" that has replaced, for all intents and purposes, the now dead never to be revived, JFNA Executive Committee, to interview each member prior to their appointment or reappointment and assure that they commit to support the changes you know have to be made for JFNA to succeed. Then proceed.
There are many fantasists among JFNA lay and professional leadership -- preferring to believe that all is well rather than face up to the reality of daily failure. These fantasists have not only learned nothing from the mistakes of the past; they were determined to repeat them. And have. You can put a stop to this practice, first by bringing your sense of reality to JFNA and, then, acting to change that reality for the better and forever.
Sadly, you are going to quickly find, if you have not already, that JFNA is a place where mediocrity has become the aspiration; where excellence -- the standard that you will insist upon -- is not in the lexicon of JFNA's current professional leaders -- because they do not understand how to achieve it. At the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles, working with a bright, energetic, aggressive and visionary CEO, together you began to implement the transformational changes necessary to communal growth and creative engagement. From what I understand some of those changes were painful, wrenching, but they were done in the interests of the community, its present and future. Now is your opportunity to begin that process on a continental level. I ask you to look at the waste of the last 5+ years, at the sclerotic organization that you will now lead...and take the steps necessary to make change possible and to do so quickly, as you did in Los Angeles. There is no time to wait.
Can't wait to see you lead you us forward.
Sincerely,
Richard
Rwexler
Sadly, you are going to quickly find, if you have not already, that JFNA is a place where mediocrity has become the aspiration; where excellence -- the standard that you will insist upon -- is not in the lexicon of JFNA's current professional leaders -- because they do not understand how to achieve it. At the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles, working with a bright, energetic, aggressive and visionary CEO, together you began to implement the transformational changes necessary to communal growth and creative engagement. From what I understand some of those changes were painful, wrenching, but they were done in the interests of the community, its present and future. Now is your opportunity to begin that process on a continental level. I ask you to look at the waste of the last 5+ years, at the sclerotic organization that you will now lead...and take the steps necessary to make change possible and to do so quickly, as you did in Los Angeles. There is no time to wait.
Can't wait to see you lead you us forward.
Sincerely,
Richard
Rwexler
Aggressive is the right word. Fire a third of your staff and you're a hero
ReplyDeleteAnother new chairman of the board, another hopeful plea for change...
ReplyDeleteOy Richard! When will you ever learn?
I am clearly a slow learner. But, at the moment not without hope.
ReplyDeleteJay/Richard was not much different than Jerry/Michael
ReplyDeleteRichard, I am at the GA -- I have never been at a Plenary so sparsely attended. This is truly a pathetic turnout.
ReplyDeleteClearly we were at different plenaries.
ReplyDeleteI would be interested in the last Anon's sense of the GA. You were at the JFNA GA, yes?
ReplyDeleteYes. I thought the plenary was excellent. Very moving, inspiring. The Canadian judge was extremely powerful. So were David Gregory and Debra Messing. Everyone around me was very impressed and pleased.
ReplyDeleteI'm not the previous writer but I thought it was excellent
ReplyDeleteGotta agree, Richard. I couldn't gauge the numbers but the content was good.
ReplyDeleteJustice Abella was incredible. Made me proud to be a Canadian.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you not interested in the first Anon's sense of the GA?
ReplyDeleteAs to attendance I agree with the Anonymous at 1:39 but I am not sure if we are speaking about the same plenary. The opening plenary was at 2:00 making it hard for the Anon at 1:39 to have a sense of the crowd. Here are the facts. The posted maximum capacity in the room was 900. The camera crew eliminated roughly six to eight rows of potential chairs. Each row in front of the cameras had about 40 chairs across and there appeared to be about 15 - 18 rows of chairs total. There was a terrace surrounding the main floor that could have conceivably held another hundred people. Needless to say all the chairs were not filled. That being said that the crowd could not possibly be anywhere near 3,000 (unless JFNA counted arms and legs instead of bodies) the three main speakers were quite good and frankly far superior to the three Jewish "Supremes" who last year were the featured speakers at the opening plenary.
ReplyDeleteFriends, I watched the Plenary streaming on the Internet. I was moved by the presentations by Justice Abella and David Gregory. It would have been even better had there been a real "scholar-in-residence" timing these so personal stories to community but, even so, each standing alone was excellent.
ReplyDeletecontent - good
ReplyDeleteattendance - poor
You can't get a feel for the GA by watching it on the Internet. It's like saying you've been on a mission because you saw a movie about Israel.
ReplyDeleteAnd why, Richard, are you playing the AIPAC numbers game? We don't need a GA packed with kids to pump up the numbers. The energy is what counts.
ReplyDeleteThe last Anon apparently doesn't read, for example, that great rag FEDWorld that even today was bragging on a GA attendance of 3,000 that exists only in their own minds. Just who is "Playing the numbers game?" Looks like JFNA to me.
ReplyDeleteAnon at 3:20 here. I don't need JFNA to tell me their games. But Richard doesn't need to do it as well.
ReplyDeleteI'm sitting here in a plenary that, as a professional, is fascinating. Not sure you'd need thousands of people to appreciate it or show off about it. But I'm glad I can be here. And I don't need the AIPAC comparisons. This is what I need right here.
ReplyDelete