It was an organization that, at one time, was institutionally heroic -- if an entity can be such. In its first iteration, it was the pre-State government of Israel. Post-Independence, it was a partner in building the country and the nation. In one five year period, its work, propelled by our incredible philanthropy, prepared and delivered 1,000,000 Jews from the former Soviet Union to Israel. Its leaders, from Ben Gurion forward were our leaders...Max Fisher, z'l, Chuck Hoffberger, z'l, Corky Goodman, Alex Grass, z'l, Richie Pearlstone, Carole Solomon to Chuck Ratner...our leaders.
But, somewhere along the line, somewhere in its most modern history, the Jewish Agency for Israel lost its way. And, today, the evidence is in that JAFI has lost sight of its core purposes. (Sound familiar?) To those of us who fought the successful fight side-by-side with lay and professional leaders worldwide: to depoliticize the Agency, to make its annual budget among the most transparent in Jewish organizational life -- more so, certainly, than those of the JDC and JFNA, to name but two -- to maintain and increase allocations to JAFI's core budget; and to assure that its programs were not just funded but monitored and evaluated -- to us these are the saddest of days.
Not so long ago JAFI's lay leaders -- at the time, Richie Pearlstone and Natan Sharansky, the latter more of a hybrid lay-professional as Chair of the JAFI Executive -- had determined to invigorate a worldwide financial resource development effort. With Sharansky's support and encouragement, the organization sought out Misha Galperin, then in the process of negotiating an extension of his contract as CEO/President of the Washington D.C. Federation, to lead this world-wide effort. Galperin, who knew something about chain of command from his work at first the New York UJA-Federation and then D.C., had but few requirements for this new position -- that his JAFI contract mirror his contract with Washington with adjustments for relocation to New York; that severance conditions be unequivocal; and, most critically, that his reporting path be directly and expressly to Natan and the Board Chair. It was this last "demand" that caused the greatest issues.
Even before Misha's contract was executed, the JAFI Director General, Alan Hoffmann, attempted both directly and in the shadows, to either modify the reporting inserting himself in the process or, in the alternative, to kill the deal. Ultimately, Galperin agreed to a modified reporting outline, with Hoffmann in the mix. But the die had been already cast -- relations between Alan and Misha were bad from the beginning and only got worse.
JAID -- the Jewish Agency International Development -- was essentially a one man band with Galperin the band leader with few if any instruments. Although Misha staffed up with the some wonderful professionals in the New York HQ, it was he, almost alone, who solicited $10s of millions for JAFI's coffers. His annual successes exceeded even the most optimistic of estimates. But, still, it appeared that the JAFI Director General did all that he could to undermine Galperin's efforts. When Chuck Ratner, an inspired lay Board Chair for whom Alan Hoffmann had been his JAFI guru, succeeded Pearlstone, an active Galperin supporter, the die was cast. Slowly but surely, even Sharansky's support for Misha eroded -- ultimately, Misha was pushed to the ledge. His contract was not renewed.
JAFI, Alan Hoffman, Chuck Ratner, Natan Sharansky, in their collective "brilliance," were willing to put at risk, if not absolutely sacrifice, those $10s of millions which they knew Misha raised through his personal efforts, for what appeared to have been nothing more than a power play the outcome of which was Alan Hoffmann "winning" a bureaucratic victory -- the price be damned. What a "victory." JAID today languishes with a new professional leader about to join. That leader, Josh Fogelson, once the CEO of the Minneapolis Federation (where, during the days in which the JFNA Financial Relations leadership engaged in core allocations advocacy, kept us out and the JAFI allocation cratered in that community), will now need to build/rebuild an entire structure from the ground up . (One of Galperin's failings was his apparent belief that a lay cohort was unnecessary to the JAID efforts across the Continents. None was really implemented and the lay structure which many of us had built at JAFI North America, essentially abandoned by the end of Misha's term.) JAID/JAFI requires great lay/professional leadership; JAID/JAFI requires greater coordination with UIA. A 2014 outline of the "division of overseas responsibilities among UIA and JFNA-Global Operations (and JFNA-Israel, one and the same) has ruptured given Silverman's inattention, UIA leadership's apparent lack of interest, and Becky Caspi's continued empire-building.
So, the search for Galperin's successor has been completed. Josh Fogelson will be in place by January 1, 2016. Several things are certain: the new JAID CEO will report directly and exclusively to the JAFI Director General for better or, more likely, for worse; the marketing function for JAID will not be a JAID function run from New York HQ but will be run out of Jerusalem, also under Hoffmann's thumb. As good as Josh Fogelson may be, the new CEO will be a lesser Misha Galperin. Anyone who has led an FRD effort understands that marketing and FRD require coordination and direction, by FRD for FRD -- that will not be the case at JAID/JAFI.
Total it up -- Alan Hoffmann has "won" an illusory victory while JAFI is the loser. Big time loser.
Rwexler
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
It's a shame Hoffman's retirement is not far into the future. At least in the interim he can be held clearly responsible for JAFI's likely failure to even maintain, let alone increase, JAFI's North American FRD efforts. Now that he has won his organizational victory he needs to own it!
Josh Fogelson's hire is a major boost for JAFI. He is an outstanding professional. This, as we say in the business, is good for the Jews.
What was Misha Galperin if not an outstanding professional. In fact I would have rated him among the top five or six execs, if not higher, in the entire federation system.
To claim, Richard, that the fight to depoliticize the Agency in years past was successful, as you do, is a bit too much.
If that weren't enough, to claim that JAFI's annual budget was ever more transparent than JFNA's is ridiculous.
But the most extravagant claim, at least to those of us who have too many years experience, is to say that we were assured that JAFI's programs were "not just funded but monitored and evaluated." Take it from an old-timer here, Richard: we may not be in the best of times today. But we are certainly not in the worst of times.
Misha and Josh -- solid if exceptional execs/professionals. Even they can't invent a compelling mission worthy of the enormous bureaucracy that is Jafi today. Yeah, I know some will show that it's shrunk over time, become more transparent, etc. But at its core, Jafi exists to exist because it's a large political institution/employer in Israel. In recent years federations have been sending more and more dollars to JDC. Is it marketing? Maybe. But that's the whiners' excuse.
Of late Josh has been rising in the ranks of JDC. No way that happens without sharing JDC's institutional disdain for Jafi (c'mon, you know it's true!). This will be an interesting transformation.
JDC's institutional disdain for JAFI is a reflection of how the LCEs feel about JAFI too. With good reason.
With all his family ties, it will be interesting to see how NY's CEO interacts with JAFI. HIs predecessor always interacted well - even got himself an appointment with JPPI following his retirement!
JDC lost three marketing and fundraising senior pros this last year - Josh to JAFI, Ben Shimon to Metrowest, and Graham Cannon to NY. Now they're losing Alan Gill too.
It's really not terrible that Misha lost the fight. The Agency does not have to raise new money. During the term of Hoffman the Agency has already died an unnatural death. Most of the best programs of the Agency have already died under Hoffmann's hand And that is really horrible story.
To anonymous at 12:21 - I hope you're not giving Sharansky a free pass for the Agency's failures. After all, it happened on his watch - and he definitely bought into the strategic plan and the elimination of many programs.
WTF happened to Gill? He achieved the dream job of his life and less than three years later he's done? Doesn't ring true.
Gill was a colossal failure. He swarmed his way into the job by playing up to key lay leaders but plunged the org into chaos with a stunning lack of leadership. Good fundraiser yes. Able CEO not even close. Jdc board knew he was a bad choice just one year into his term but it took 2.5 years to dump him
Richard - are you not ashamed at what you're allowing to take place here? This is on you.
Richard -- In one post you rightly/justifiably slam ZOA for overpaying its CEO and in the next you praise JAFI for overpaying Misha. How can you say what he asked for was reasonable? His severance deal would make a tech CEO blush and the numbers that you're giving him credit for are crazy wrong. JAFI needs to figure out what its modern role is the world before it figures out which fundraiser reports to which exec.
I often wonder how much good work could be done here if these comments weren't anonymous!
I agree with those of you who hold me responsible for publishing some of the Comments to this Post. I also wanted to observe the action taken by an Anonymous Commentator whose Comment I rejected as it did not further any aspect of the discussion but he/she did the right thing announcing he/she would no longer read the Blog. That choice is available to anyone who disagrees or rejects the views expressed here.
It seems that Galperin earned every bit of his compensation and then some. I would like to see the critics of his salary raise the funds he did from scratch.
There are very few places where we can have an honest discussion about our national leaders, pro or volunteer. I commend Richard for providing this space. We’d better not be so thin skinned that honest discussion is somehow a bad thing. Salaries of leaders is a fair discussion. So are their strengths and weaknesses. Being afraid to talk about these things leads to the mess we are in.
I have rejected the Comment from the Anonymous writer who, apparently frustrated that earlier diatribes have been rejected, now tosses around words like "slander" which he/she clearly doesn't understand, and expects to be published here. As I have suggested often, just change the channel.
Richard,
I'm a big fan of your blog. But I don't think this is the way forward. No derech eretz in allowing anonymous unfair comments about people.
I agree with anon at 4:05. The conversation is too important. Richard, I respect your views. But we don't need the personal attacks.
To anonymous at 4:05 and at4:20 - how exactly do you suggest to save the Jewish Agency if not by doing everything to throw out Hoffman who is continuing to destroy program after program? Professional by professional?
I am the anon at 4;20. I wasn't even referring to the Hoffman discussion. I just think that the personal attacks were unworthy in general. Hoffman wasn't the only one attacked in the comments.
Post a Comment