Let's start with identifying who will lead us through change? JFNA has at its helm a new face in its CEO, Eric Fingerhut. I am told that he led Hillel through real and positive change; but Hillel was/is a system, it wasn't and isn't 148 independent federations and 300 non-federated communities operating in an amorphous Network. Eric has the advantage of a lay partner, Mark Wilf, who will walk with him side-by-side in pursuit of real change.
In addition, the late 'teens brought real change at the Federation level -- John Ruskay was the first of the Large City Executives to retire, followed by Steve Hoffman and Steve Nasatir , Barry Shrage and, no doubt, others. Each was succeeded by bright young women and men, each of whom must be willing to examine what is and then must demand what should be. In the near-term future other communities will see the retirement of important CEOs, most notably Jay Sanderson's planned retirement. (I'm aging just writing this.)
Unfortunately, the first of this "new breed" of CEO appears to be determined to lead his community away from the "collective responsibilities" on which it was built toward...what exactly? It seems clear to this observer that the actions of New York-UJA under Eric Goldstein have been designed solely to reduce the largest Jewish community in North America's financial support of the system in Draconian ways -- defund the National Agencies-Federation Alliance, cut is funding of the core budgets of the system's overseas partners, cut its Dues obligations to JFNA, and more -- all without an express vision of what that critical federation wishes to emerge after the destruction and dust clear.
Do New York's leaders wish to reduce JFNA to a down-sized trade association for which some have clamored for years? Or do its leaders want a Continental organization that will focus on Federations' great needs? Does it want to force JAFI to focus on substance or to be a convener and think tank leaving substance to, e.g., the Government of Israel, other NGOs or...no one? Will New York financially support National Agencies still meeting the challenges at home and abroad in meaningful ways or will it further turn away from were once its leadership responsibilities.
And, if New York continues down its funding path of turning inward, how many others will follow? Will the new CEOs in Chicago, Cleveland and, soon, LA, have the strength to maintain funding what have been their core responsibilities? Will new CEO's -- bright and committed like Metro West's Dov Ben-Shimon, Cleveland's Erika Rudin-Luria. Chicago's Lonnie Nasatir and many others -- recognize the crises we face and confront them? Will they push JFNA to focused achievement? I
I hope and pray that the current iteration of JFNA leaders are prepared to lead a discussion about change, about responsibility, about purpose and focus and then have the resolve to implement the consensus decisions reached.
At braishit for JFNA the federations agreed that for the first two years of the organization they would at the least hold their allocations for overseas needs at the then current levels to give the organization the breathing space necessary to, among other things, develop a binding Dues formula and to build consensus for the expressed purpose of building "more dollars and more donors." This "hold" on allocations lasted one year before Boston's CJP unilaterally decided to violate its own agreement and the Continental organization's leaders lacked the courage of their convictions. The downward spiral began then, worsened with the top down creation of the ill-conceived, ill-named Global Planning Table, that Rube Goldbergian contraption that, if nothing else, formalized the disintegration of collective responsibility with the GPT's unfilled "promise" of "coalitions of the willing" in which almost none were willing.
It is probably inappropriate to liken our organizations to the nation described in the Babylonian Talmud -- but, I'll do it anyway:
"(Our organizations) are likened to dust and likened to the stars. When they decline, they decline to the dust; and when they rise, they rise to the stars."The choice for 2020 is stark: dust or stars. And that choice is yours.
Will Mark Wilf and Eric Fingerhut have the koach to rally the Jewish Federations to understand their responsibilities to each other and to those of our People most in need? Demand that our leaders lead. Time's a'wasting.
Rwexler
Posts
4 comments:
Richard, your analysis contains two fundamental flaws:
1. Hillel is, in fact, a network of independent agencies. Hillel international neither owns, nor controls, the hundreds of Hillels around the country. So Eric Fingerhut does have some idea of the challenges he is undertaking.
2. Federations were not created to support overseas needs. They were created to streamline fundraising for local needs (e.g. the history of CJP, Detroit, etc.). While they (rightfully) morphed to take on international responsibilities just before, and certainly in the years after, WWII and the founding of the State of Israel, one could argue that NY is actually returning to the "'collective responsibilities' on which it was built."
That said, federations and the "federated system" are undergoing tremendous challenges and stress. As you -- rightly -- point out, new, creative leadership is most certainly required. However, simply attempting to go back to the glory days of the 70s and 80s is neither feasible nor wise. What is needed is a new model (both local and national) for the new challenges the 2020s present. As the saying goes, "what got you here, ain't what's gonna get you there."
JFNA has indeed become nothing more than a trade organization, a poor one too. To expect the kind of change that is needed is nothing more than wishful thinking and probably just a waste theof time and money at this stage. The only difference between Fingerhut and Silverman is their names. The other so-called professionals that have remained at JFNA are not a very good bet for anything except their own survival. They will keep working out at full speed on their treadmills for as long as JFNA lets them and can pay their salaries. That will probably not be for too long.
The damage has been done and there will be no going back. What will happen now is indeed up to the new execs and the organizations that we have turned into mere "service providers." Hopefully, they will be able to continue their good work by succeeding in their attempts to market themselves to the federations,and their donors, as well as to others that will be willing to support what needs to be done.
We have squandered the past two decades, certainly the last one.
Happy 2020!
Throw in to the mix the soon to be departure of Scott Kaufman in Detroit another federation that previously was looked to for its continental influence. There are two other names that were not mentioned that could and hopefully will play a bigger role in moving the federations back to their more "collective" responsibility - if only they will - Terrill and Solomon.
To Anon 12:44 - while you are technically correct that federations were created for local needs many of them have now long since passed their 100th anniversary. Over time they all took on the responsibility of world wide Jewry for all the historic reasons we well know. By 1948 (if not sooner) JAFI and JDC had already begun working together and created UJA. (I believe World ORT was part of the early days of UJA by virtue of contractual agreements with JDC to carry out retraining of the Jews in the DP camps and for the next 40-50 years or so wherever Jews needed retraining.) The federations fully adopted the model and for the next 50-60 years understood they had a collective responsibility. Even NY under the leadership of that great professional - Bill Kahn recognized the importance of one agency assuming both roles - support local needs and support collective overseas needs as exemplified by the merger that took place in the late 1980's to create what is today UJA/Federation of NY, not UJA of NY and the Federation of NY as two separate agencies, but as one agency. I assume that this merger led some other leaders nationally to recognize the importance of one united national organization. I seem to recall that around 1990 there was already some initial discussions taking place under the leadership of Marty Kraar z'l and his counterpart at UJA (maybe Brian Lurie) about possible collaboration/merger of the two organizations - UJA and CJF. The end result was that within less than 10 years there was a formal merger into then UJC, now JFNA. I doubt that any of these mergers took place without a clear understanding of the leadership both professional and lay leaders that a commitment had to be made to both sides of the equation so to speak. Now 20 years (plus) later after the respective mergers took place there is a clear trend that federations are moving to one side at the expense of the others as if history and commitments are unimportant or not even a factor. I have a sense that the more the trend continues the more we will see JDC, JAFI, World ORT and perhaps others ramp up their fundraising efforts locally causing more riffs and tension in the communities. This would be a terrible reversion to what existed in the first half of the last century and mostly due to leadership that does not recognize its commitment to a global Jewish community.
Post a Comment