UJ Thee and Me

DOGGEREL

2012-02-10T05:30:00.000-06:00

One thing is certain, there is always something...

     ~ Roland Martin, is/was a CNN commentator was indefinitely suspended by that network for some "regrettable and offensive" tweets during the Super Bowl. One of those read as follows: "If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham's H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl." Bet I know who will be headlining TribeFest 3.

     ~ Dan Brown, the thoughtful and insightful founder and publisher of eJewishPhilanthropy, wrote a thoughtful and insightful commentary on 9 February questioning the aims and "achievements" of JFNA's multi-million investment in its Marketing and Communications. It's worth reading; although JFNA didn't think so. Later that same day JFNA's Joe Berkofsky, whom I usually hold in high regard, having been delegated the obligation to respond (apparently by those who wouldn't deign to do so), ripped off a "non-response" that fits the title of this Post. Let's look at what Berkofsky/JFNA wrote and note how that "non-response" proved Dan Brown's very points:

     ` "We always welcome constructive dialogue about JFNA." I have heard this so often and it is so laughable.

     ` Brown's commentary is then characterized as "erroneous speculation based on supposition and lack of facts." In fact, Brown's piece was premised on the reality that JFNA's marketing and communications "efforts" wholly failed to provide facts on which the North American Jewish polity could rely.

     ` Berkofsky pointed to the "...thousands of news stories (arising out of) an actionable strategic communications plan." Hey, Joe, the word "actionable" has as its primary definition "providing grounds for legal action..." But...we get your point, whatever it may have been.

     ` Because, you see, after citing a broad array of media in which "JFNA stories" have appeared, Berkofsky goes on to cite the "impact" as "...being quantifiably measured in hundreds of millions of viewers." Not hundreds of thousands or even tens of millions...but hundreds of millions. And the source for that "quantifiable measure?" Unexplained. Unknown. Non-existent? Whoever sourced the "hundreds of millions" count must be the same person who offers attendance figures at GAs and TribeFest and in "touches" of Community Heroes. Great work!!

As I read the rest of the broadside, I mused: where are the citations to Dan Brown's "erroneous speculation based on supposition and a lack of facts." Finding none I thought was the best/worst commentary of all on JFNA's Marketing and Communications effort.

   ` I have read with continuing interest, the spate of TribeFest invites, reminders, etc. I like the idea of putting young leaders to speak on panels on subjects they may know something about. I have always had a problem with attempts at "cute" in titling sessions such as Generation Change: How to Occupy Your (Jewish) Community Now, or Zionism and Liberalism: Lifelong Partners or A One Night Stand? And, with few JFNA staff on the Program (at least for now) and having to get to Las Vegas before the preposterous add-on Leadership Development Institute begins Sunday a.m., and presuming that JFNA has continued an UJA policy of no travel on Shabbat, just how many staffers will have an expense paid weekend in Las Vegas starting pre-Shabbat? I know they'll all come back energized on Wednesday.

Shabbat shalom.

Rwexler

THE GA

2012-02-09T05:30:00.000-06:00

First, congrats to JFNA, the Denver GA produced a $300,000(+) surplus. That's great. The surplus suggests that the fewer the full pay Registrants, the absence of the Prime Minister, the diminished number of paid speakers, even JFNA can run a profitable GA. But, is a GA with 848 full paid Registrants really a GA? Is this what anyone intended the GA to be? (To be sure JFNA has calculated that attendance swelled thanks to 254 students and 80 paying a day rate, and a claimed 1,318 unpaid attendees, etc.. etc. I will merely note in passing that next month AIPAC expects over 10,000 at its Policy Conference. That's right: GA 848 full paid registrants; AIPAC 10,000 attendees.)

I do remember a few years ago JFNA appointed a Committee to study how to improve and create a "new GA." Then it rolled out the Study as if it actually represented something "new." It won't surprise any of you that the Chair (sole member[?!]) of that special Committee was...Kathy Manning. And what a success that Committee has made: (1) attendance of full Registrants is at an all-time low; (2) even though the Committee's seminal recommendation was that the event be held in those cities "most attractive" to potential Registrants (resulting in the removal of GAs from, e.g., Houston and Orlando)...see (1) above; and (3) attendance at GAs requires recruitment by the GA Chairs (and an actual GA Committee working on Program and recruitment -- but that would involve more lay involvement and we're against that, right?) in the federations themselves, a concept apparently unknown at JFNA even with the same Chairs the last two years.

Even with the admirable surplus, revenues fell almost 10% below estimates. Yet, the attendance estimates for the Denver GA (1845) were off by only 8%. (Apparently, the fewer the full paid Registrants, the greater the "profitability.") The message I guess is a simple one -- stand Burnham's admonition "make no little plans" on its head. For the GA, make the smallest plans and success shall be yours. Congratulate the GA Co-Chairs for their great work at the microphones and move on to next year. This may make for smaller and smaller GAs but profitable ones. Is this what we want from our premier annual event? Is it any longer a "premier annual event?" Or do we no longer care? Maybe we should just fold it into TribeFest.

Rwexler

HELL IN A HAND BASKET -- TRIBEFEST EDITION

2012-02-06T05:30:00.000-06:00

I understand the sense of desperation at JFNA over the probability that TribeFestivus II will be as big a financial failure as the first Festivus. So, here's what's happening (or not happening):

   ~ JFNA Senior professionals have made it abundantly clear in writing that the overriding purpose of TribeFest "...is the collective goal of bring more people to TribeFest." It's all about the numbers; the numbers are the "goal." Thus, after offering the Endowment Committee "seven ways" staff -- for this is a staff driven thing with YLC lay leaders around for support and script reading -- to apply a $100,000 proposed grant, ultimately staff decided to offer 500 additional potential registrants a $200 subsidy. Seeing as 73% of all participants in Fest 1 were subsidy recipients, sounds like a good way to hype the numbers for a Conference that, like the old Seinfeld show, like JFNA itself, appears to be about nothing. But it is about something -- TribeFest II is all about spending what JFNA estimates (and JFNA is really bad at this) $818,259 before staff travel and overhead...this is therefor a $1,000,000 event. Where was the debate over this investment? Rhetorical question. Numbers for numbers sake.

Forgive me but I can think of ten things or more that JFNA might be doing with $1 million that responds to the needs of federations, that would produce more young leaders. But, at JFNA...this.

     ~ National Young Leadership will convene a pre-Festivus "Leadership Development Institute" in a transparent effort to pump up attendance. So, here you have it: Festivus "designed" for the non-affiliated will be integrated with NYL -- supposedly the "elite" of the affiliated young adults. JFNA is so confused and desperate, they don't even see the conflict...can't have a deficit;

     ~ The confusion that is promised by the Global Planning Table "process" will now be exacerbated as the Festivus attendees will be surveyed as to how our donors Israel and Overseas dollars should be prioritized and distributed. Yes, JoAnne Moore will devote a session -- say that's an hour -- to "explaining" our system's historical commitment to Israel and overseas needs and the GPT itself and, then, these young men and women will be asked for their "input." I can think of nothing more pandering or ridiculous, other than the waste of Festivus itself.

Best I can tell the "LDI" (yes, in the great tradition of JFNA, this thing has already acquired its own acronym) will last for 5 hours (and that includes at least lunch and, probably, breakfast), cost $99 (in addition to the $499 cost [less subsidy] of the Fest) and the speakers will all be professionals, mainly from JFNA or affiliates, each with little in the way of federation experience (not that that matters anymore). No lay persons, though there are Co-Chairs who will, no doubt, bring greetings and say farewell. Sad, but this is what the Young Leadership Cabinets have been reduced to -- no longer the fertile field of future federation leadership, just bringers of best wishes and cheerleaders for ideas no matter how weak. Oh, and "...professionals are invited to register to learn alongside lay leaders."

     ~ As of mid-December, 104 young men and women had registered; now the claim is that over 800 have -- amazingly, though the recession is still upon us, and there have been no apparent communal benefits from Festivus 1, allegedly 64 communities are already committed to subsidize Festivus 2 and JFNA copped a $100,000 "grant" for 500 more subsidies (see "above"). I am told that the YLC conducted "post conference programming...including the handbook, e-mails to assist communities to conduct innovative and creative activities following the Tribefest experience." Have you seen any of that?

     ~ I read somewhere about the Jewish Rapper Shyne, who, for some reason known only to Shyne himself, announced he was "rapping my tzitzis." Shyne will no doubt be front and center on the Main Stage at the Festivus. Enjoy.

     ~ And back on January 17, an attendee at the first Festivus wrote: "Now with TribeFest rapidly approaching, I think we need more dish on how that NEW IDEA is progressing in light of last year's 'results.' I was in Las Vegas and despite the fact that the vast majority of attendees were self-selected Young Leadership types, when discussing plans for this year almost no one knows about the massive cost overruns, the failure of achieving stated goals, etc. I mean I had a very fun time last year on my heavily subsidized trip - but I don't know how I can justify going again while remaining at peace with my conscience. So please - let me know how it's going. Please tell me that JFNA is taking active measures to organize a better event, to attract any new blood, etc. Please tell me this is not going to be just another booze soaked Vegas weekend."

________________________________________________________________

Like you, I want to see more and more young men and women engage with our system. We have found the means to do so in Chicago and those from federation with credibility at JFNA have suggested both tried and proven ways to do so to JFNA time and again -- only to be ignored time and again. What we have instead is this pile of waste now to be repeated for a second year. So, JFNA will have lost two years wandering in the desert that is the Festivus/Festivii. Last year over $253,000 was lost on this thing and to avoid further losses this year, $100,000 was sought and granted from the JFNA's endowment and the attendance pleas and pressures began much earlier in 2012. And, remember this name...Rachel Dratch, star of 30 Rock (or was that Tina Fey?), and one big name draw at the Fest to come, along with multiple personalities from 25 Broadway.

So, here you have it: JFNA has made TribeFest its premier program. It's throwing $1,000,000 of its budget at it and asking you for more, assigning its top domestic professionals to it (most of whom by age alone should be as disqualified from attendance as I am) -- and it can articulate no purpose for it other than...numbers. This is junk programming; it is narishkeit; it is a terrible waste at a time that we cannot afford any.
At the end of the day, with all of the waste -- money, professionals' time that could be spent productively, the precious time of young Cabinet members and leaders (who have actually been convinced and convinced themselves that this is something other than "another booze soaked Vegas weekend." Remember last year, the YLC Co-Chair actually compared Fest to Birthright.) -- most tragic is how our system is being presented to those not affiliated with us and to those who are at an event like this.

Rwexler

CASH

2012-02-03T05:30:00.000-06:00

In the Orwellian lexicon of hyperbole at JFNA where less is more and failure is success, it will come as no surprise that having failed in its cash collections for at least the sixth straight year, the Board Chair closed her cash rtesults transmittal to the JFNA Board with the following message: "May we go from strength to strength." With this kind of "strength" and this kind of leadership, shouldn't be long now and, absent their own FRD and cash efforts, our "partners" will be out of business with JFNA's leaders performing the last rites. Fra il dire il fare c'e di mezzo il mare ("an ocean lies between what is said and what is done) -- JFNA words to live by.

I knew that cash collections were again in trouble when, at the GA, the Board Chair didn't even bother with her annual public pro forma cash plea, but, instead, delegated that assignment to the Treasurer, who read the script as well as could have been done. And, that was it. The professional staff did its best as it always does -- professionals like recently retired Sam Astrof, Pam Zaltsman and Cheryl Lefland have demonstrated the kind of professional commitment coupled with their passion year and year again. But, unlike in the past, today there is no complementary and supportive lay collections effort -- the Financial Relations Committee used to have a broad cash focus that included allocations; today, it is dedicated to Dues to the exclusion of all else (and the Board Chair and CEO/President have emasculated that Committee's work, as well) -- and the lay leadership has little if anything to do even with that. While one would have hoped against hope that that meager effort would have gone well, the results, well, they speak sadly for themselves -- never in the history of JFNA have our partners, JDC and the Jewish Agency, received less cash support for their core budgets. That happened against the backdrop of JFNA's leaders plotting the total deconstruction of support for the Agency and Joint through their machinations in support of the Global Planning Table.

And, the other "partners," what happened to them? Well, the Ethiopian National Project, for which JFNA leaders made a special plea in 2011, down. ORT, suddenly elevated to "partnership" status, for which there was no special plea, down. JDC and JAFI, subjected to the failed experiment of "Special Core Priorities," further distracting the few federations that participated (actually, 10 -- 6% of the total number of federations), hit record allocation lows. And, with JFNA totally consumed by the Global Planning Table, there continued to be no advocacy for the core allocations of the Agency or Joint -- just the opposite, in fact.

Our system is cratering everywhere we look. The Board Chair, in total denial, wishes that we "...go from strength to strength." OMG.

Rwexler

"PHILANTHROPIC RESOURCES" -- A TUTORIAL

2012-01-30T05:30:00.000-06:00

For some reason, JFNA's leaders decided to roll out the panoply of functions allegedly performed by its "Philanthropic Resources Support Services to Federations" in a lengthy presentation/discussion/program filler at the recently completed Board Retreat. And I am sure that Susie Stern presented it in a compelling manner. I am certain that more than one Board member was thinking -- "Why us? Why not bring together the Campaign Chairs and Directors?" The answer: "No, they would know this was all just a rehash of what was done 15 years ago even if we don't." They also know that if it looks like bull~~shit~~ and smells like bull~~shit~~, it's probably bull~~shit~~. I found the recitation -- three whole pages worth -- in light of JFNA's walk away from its FRD responsibilities -- to be uproarious. Those with whom I shared the document found my conclusion to be overly generous. All I can figure is that given the venue, Disney World, that they moved this particular presentation to Fantasyland.

It appeared to me that this Philanthropic Resources summary was culled almost completely from a paper that Eric Levine, then the professional leader of FRD at JFNA, prepared (and shared with me at the time) at least five years ago -- and that piece was itself culled from the real work of UJA some 15 years ago. Listed in the JFNA piece are some 97...that's right 97...programs in which its Philanthropic Resources Department is "engaged." And that preposterous number doesn't even include the subset of programs under a given individual heading. Susie Stern reported that the Department is working with 107 Federations -- another preposterous number. This at a time when the Department has been deconstructed to such a great extent -- leaving behind some excellent professionals to be sure. Surely not even the few of them left would claim that, e.g., they have "loaned" a JFNA "executive" to a "federation in urgent situations," since, maybe, David Saginaw, long since moved on to Birthright, when he assisted San Francisco three years ago, or that they are engaged in, horrors, "fund raising."

Then there's the claim of an "invigorated national Missions program." Take a careful look at this example of the shell game. There is no budget for Mission subsidies; the shocking lack of continental participation in the 2011 Prime Minister's Mission was a direct result of the failure by JFNA leadership to recruit and an apparent disinterest in doing so; the scheduling of multiple Missions to South America at almost the same time was self-defeating; and so on, and so on.

Then, again, it's easy to ratchet up the "program count" if you're going to include the "NYL Cabinet Shabbaton at the GA" as a program or "Boutique Missions" of which there have been none, or Festivus as a "Philanthropic Resources" program. Or throw in, as an example, I guess, of "Consulting Services, the "...integration of the Collaborative Model, an interdisciplinary approach" or the Large City Investment Program as a Philanthropic Resources program.

This is the sorry state of JFNA today: in overstating what you claim to be doing, you just destroy the credibility of what you might actually be doing. Instead of being a center of excellence with priorities clear, JFNA is a center of nothing, without purpose or goals. Fantasyland.

Rwexler

WREAKING HAVOC EVERYWHERE

2012-01-27T05:30:00.000-06:00

Sigh. Is it the beginning of the end or just the end of the beginning?

~ As JTA reported just before the New Year, the Boston Globe wrote that "...Combined Jewish Philanthropies has hired a gay rabbi as its first interfaith ambassador, a role in which he runs interfaith parenting workshops and presides at interfaith marriages." I am going to assume that the Globe article was based on some Boston federation press release, otherwise why is the fact that the rabbi in question is gay relevant at all? The Boston federation has done some wonderful outreach to the interfaith community, now, you can answer the question: is one role of a federation in 2011 to "...preside at interfaith marriages?"

~ Many Israeli-based NGOs and non-profits were anxiously anticipating a meeting with Joanne Moore, JFNA's Sr. V-P for the GPT on her seven to ten visit to Israel immediately after the New Year (what travel agents would call a "fam trip"). Oooops, trip canceled with neither explanation or rescheduling. Your guess is as good as mine...or theirs.

~ But, speaking of travel to Israel, as his faithful aide, Becky Caspi, dutifully reported, in the first week of 2012, CEO/Pres Silverman, returned to his reported "triumphant" whirling dervish opposition to venal proposed changes to the "Law of Return" last year (a virtuoso Jerry one-man show that had no evident impact on the process), this time focused on responding to the ultra-Orthodox assault on tolerance and a civil society. Just as in his last intense expression of outrage on our behalf, inexplicably Jerry decided to go it more or less alone, with Caspi playing Ms. Sancho Panza to his Quixote.

You must think that there is no systemic "playbook" for just such a response to these types of activities in Israel that directly impact us. It's simple -- JFNA reaches out to the federations and asks for a contribution of lay (remember them) and professional leadership to a Mission of, say, 200 leaders from across North America to study and react to the current situation on the ground in Israel. Under the current leadership circumstances, JFNA asks the Crowns and, say, LA's Stanley Gold to lead the Mission. In Israel, JFNA-Israel isn't asked to play tour guide for CEO Jerry, but to arrange face-to-face meetings for the Mission with the Prime Minister (can they still arrange those after Itzik Shavit's, z'l. death?) and relevant Cabinet Ministers, the Orthodox Chief Rabbinate, Rabbinic leaders of Israeli Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist leaders, the leaders of Beit Shemesh, women and children who have been the heroic subjects of the taunting and attempts at humiliation, leaders of Israel's media and members of Knesset.

But no. Jerry chooses to go it alone. End result? Same as in the "Who Is a Jew" legislation in 2010-today. Jerry comes home. We read the JFNA Daily Media Guide to learn what others are doing.

Aren't we just proud?

Rwexler

THE LAST REFUGE OF SCOUNDRELS

2012-01-26T05:30:00.002-06:00

It used to be said that the last refuge of scoundrels is patriotism but, after listening to the Board Chair try to enwrap herself in "lawyerspeak" in defense of JFNA's breach of its November 2010 Agreement with JAFI and JDC, I believe the new "last refuge" is the claim that "lawyers would agree that the language of the Agreement is subject to multiple interpretations." Sadly, specious in every possible way.

Here's the specific language drafted by the Board Chair herself: "Prior to the expiration of this agreement but as aoon as possible, JFNA will establish a second membership creiterion for member Federations in an effort to increase overseas allocations to support the important work of JAFI and JDC." There is neither ambiguity nor room for interpretation in this language.

First, the language was drafted by Ms. Manning. Surely she knows of the legal maxim that language will be interpreted against the draftsperson. (Now, I'm guessing that Manning turned to some other lawyers for her specious argument but didn't bother providing them with the facts.) Second, I was negotiating on behalf of the other parties to the Agreement and (1) I know what was meant by the cited clause and (2) I know that Manning and I discussed the meaning specifically.

Didn't the Board Chair tell others -- Large City Executives, the CEO, her lay leaders -- that "I blew it?" But, nonetheless, at the Board meeting in Orlando, she chose to hide behind the old "multiple interpretations" argument, specious as it is and was. She and Jerry had already reported to a group of Executives that JFNA could not get those who fail or refuse to allocate to JAFI/JDC to agree to a Second Membership Criterion. Instead of meeting the responsibilities and obligations of the contract they had drafted on the subject, they pleaded with responsible federation leaders to help them "hold the system together" (as if those who fail to allocate to JAFI/JDC care about "the system"). At the end of the day, once again, a group of leaders from caring and responsible communities appear to have agreed to a Second Membership Criterion that urges the lowest common denominator to meet a minimum so low as to be laughable "in the interest of keeping the system together."

But, with all of this, I have to tell you that I hold Kathy Manning in awe. Watching her outwit and overwhelm some of the best and brightest of the federation system with what they have to know is "whatever works," to me is like what it must have been like to walk into Picasso's studio and watching him paint. Yes, I am in awe.

By acquiescing to the least among us, we acknowledge that we have no system...and with that no hope. And we didn't need a specious, misleading and ultimately unnecessary argument to get us there.

Rwexler

MIRABILE DICTU -- ALMOST

2012-01-25T05:30:00.000-06:00

Still don't know what is we're doing? Then we must be doing it well.

When it comes to the GPT and the Second Membership Criterion, you know my sense that the Board Chair and her Sancho Panza, the CEO and President, have been gaming the system from the get go -- (1) the bogus "mandate" from the February 2008 Retreat,(2) the constant push for a GPT nobody really wanted but them, an Agreement with JAFI/JDC that they never intended to observe, (3) a Second Membership Criterion that excluded JAFI and JDC allocations notwithstanding the express provisions in the November 2010 Agreement that they wrote, claiming they couldn't "sell" anything more, and (4) even though they had never tried in earnest to advocate for anything other than that which they intended from the start.

Then came the week of January 15. Leaders in more than one Large City Federation read, for the first time, the proposed JFNA By-Law Amendments, the November 2010 JFNA/JAFI/JDC Agreement and the Second Membership Criterion (unchanged since September 2010). They also received a passionate and reasoned letter from the JAFI Board and Executive Chairs, the former, a mega-donor highly respected for his leadership and the Executive Chair, the heroic leader of Soviet Jewry and a force within the Israel of today. All of these factored into a "discussion" with Manning by a few Federation leaders who left that "discussion" with the hope, even the expectation, that Manning would convince recalcitrant federation leaders of the need to refocus the Membership Criterion on the core allocations of JAFI/Joint.

It seemed to me that this would be no more than an exercise for Manning/Silverman. Earlier in the same week, Silverman had reported that the outliers were unwilling to consider any commitment to the Jewish Agency and Joint as a condition precedent to JFNA membership -- after all, these "leaders" in some cases literally had spent years divorcing their federations from any semblance of collective responsibility. Now, after the continuous, uninterrupted Manning/Silverman acquiescence -- after all, it's been far, far easier to play on those federations with a sense of systemic and collective responsibility ("do you want your federation to be responsible for the system deconstructing?") than to advocate among the outliers for any sense of responsibility whatsoever -- Manning would somehow change her tune? Come on. But, in an exercise I would characterize as "buying time," she claimed that she appeared to understand that her failed leadership had dictated the breach of the November 2010 Agreement ("I had no choice") and, once again, she would make the attempt. (Actually it would be the first time.) So, Manning, like a permissive parent who has favored one child over another for three years, was now going to impose discipline on that one at the behest of the other? Not really.

So, mirabile dictu indeed. The Board Chair's chances, if she took this charge seriously, seemed to me to be as good as the chances that Gingrich would beat Romney in South Carolina. (oops!!) And so it was. JDC and JAFI, the historic partners, and our continuing commitment to them, will be cited in some Preamble language to come. The Global Planning Table Partnership Committee will be comprised of those communities which allocate 20% or more to JAFI/JDC. But, that Committee, as opposed to the multiple other GPT Committees, will make recommendations to the GPT decision-making body where federations which may make no allocations to JAFI/JDC sit and vote. This represents a seminal shift between supporting JAFI/JDC and to a small extent ORT to supporting undefined "global Jewish needs." In other words, "we'll give you some hortatory language in a Preamble you haven't seen talking about the historic systemic support for the core allocations of JAFI/JDC and urging that that support continue and you give us support for the Second Membership Criterion" and...that's it?

At the JFNA Board Meeting, Manning actually stated that there are "differing interpretations" of the JFNA/JAFI/Joint November 2010 Agreement as it pertains to the Second Membership Criterion. THAT WOULD BE SO WRONG. The language is clear; the language was written by Manning; there can be no interpretation other than that the Second Membership Criterion was mandated by the November 2010 Agreement to support additional financial resources for JAFI/JDC. And she knows it. But...can't let the facts stand in the way of progress, can we now?

Rwexler

TABLE IT ALL

2012-01-23T05:30:00.000-06:00

Today the JFNA Board has the ability to take leadership's proposed By-Law Amendments and, by a Motion to Table, send them back for necessary revisions that will reflect history and purpose. Some federation leaders have already suggested that JFNA's own leaders table these ill-considered, poorly thought through Amendments sending them back to the By-Laws Committee. In response, the Board Chair and President/CEO plow forward apparently ignorant of the further damage they are doing to an institution we all value.

Let's look at a few reasons for tabling:

     ~ The proposed elimination of the Delegate Assembly is another example of JFNA leaders failure to implement the merger requirements for meetings of the Assembly and then claiming that the Assembly hasn't met its responsibilities. The Assembly, aside from its governance responsibilities (which could be assumed by the Federation Members Corporation), was to be the one place where formal representatives of the Religious Streams, JAFI and the Joint, and thought leaders would come together with federation leaders. But, JFNA never bothered. So, their solution -- get rid of it.

     ~ Then there is the proposed elimination of the Chair of the Executive, folding that position into the Board Chair. We know how this Board Chair has chafed at watching this Chair of the Executive run Executive Committee meetings and sharing microphones at JFNA events. So, the current proposed solution would place some of the Chair of the Executive's responsibilities in a so-called "Executive Vice-Chair of the Board" who would by By-Law report to the Board Chair. Like you, I have served on many non-profit Boards, even chaired a few; never...not once...have I seen a corporate officer relegated to reporting to another. Why not just replace all of the corporate officers and have just one -- a Chair of the Board? That appears to be the goal here.

     ~ And, finally, the Endowment Committee. The By-Law Amendments would emasculate it and, just as the Global Planning Table is designed to destroy the system's historic ties to and support of the work of JAFI and JDC, the amendments to the Endowment Grant process is a grab of dollars to seed the Global Planning Table with those same dollars. Let me explain: as a result of the merger that created JFNA the respective endowments of UJA (in the tens of millions) and CJF (in the millions) were placed in what is now the JFNA Endowment. To assure that purposes of the donors continued to be met, the Grants Committee was made up of a majority of members appointed by UIA and the Joint. This frustrated JFNA -- just think, they actually had to justify their grant requests; and the UIA and Joint representatives assured that the overseas grants supported JAFI/JDC needs and programs. If the proposed By-Law Amendments are approved, the UIA and Joint will no longer be represented as a matter of fiduciary responsibility, and the very purposes of the overseas endowments will no longer be observed. This is an egregious power grab, it is in ignorance of what fiduciary responsibility means but wholly consistent with the ever-expanding demand of this leadership for control...control...control. That's what it's all about; that's what it is only about.

Motion to Table, anyone?

Rwexler

THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE WATER

2012-01-22T05:30:00.000-06:00

In response to my Post asking IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE WATER?, I received and published an Anonymous Comment:

"You should know that there are professionals at JFNA who work tirelessly in pursuit of our highest goals and aspirations, alongside many fine lay leaders, despite the lack of support from within -- and from you all on the outside. Keep attacking and they will just dig in their heels deeper, oppressing those of us who are there for the sanctity of the cause. If you really want to help, get involved in a constructive way. Stop saying they won't let you in, and just barge your way in, if you really care at all. There are enough good people worth this kind of time and effort.

Or maybe...maybe...you just don't really care at all."

Friends, I don't know if this plea/critique was directed at me or you or all of us, but I will respond. I have heard from many lay and professional leaders around the continent, from every City-size federation and from the Network, who fear, in this "go along to get along" organization, raising their voices -- fear "barging in" if you will. They have seen how leaders who have expressed privately constructive criticism have been ostracized and isolated.

There are great professionals at JFNA, but they are fewer and fewer. The favored are those who have curried and continue to curry favor with the CEO/President who speaks a great game about wanting the best and brightest on his staff but then fails in execution...and seemingly takes only the advice that confirms his own predetermination based on...what exactly? Jerry's seeming "confidence" is in only those few senior professionals who echo his views and opinions -- a dangerous way to run a $30.3 million business.

It's a sorry situation for those great young pros who joined JFNA to be part of a movement and find themselves stuck in a place without purpose or passion, often engaged in the frivolous (e.g., Registration [and discounts extended] is open for Tribefest 2 starring Rachel Dratch [??] and so very many others) ignoring the federations needs and wants.

Rwexler

THE NETWORK -- REVISITED

2012-01-21T05:30:00.000-06:00

When I published SO MANY THINGS ARE NONE OF OUR BUSINESS on January 16, I didn't anticipate that so many leaders of the 400 non-federated Network communities would write to comment on the sorry state of JFNA-Network relationships and related matters. But, they did...and their voices need to be heard here because they are no longer heard there. I am saddened by what I've learned...because I had predicted these outcomes (though not nearly as dire) when I wrote two years ago about the Board Chair's "outreach" and promises to Network leadership after their "rebellion" upon learning how much of their raised funds were being applied by JFNA to its budget.

Here are just a few of the points raised by my friends in the Network:

     ~ The Network campaign has fallen from $10 million annually to $5.5 million under its new professional leadership. Close to a 50% drop is both unheard of and unacceptable, of course -- except at JFNA.

     ~ While the 2011 Network annual campaign (the only one run by JFNA) was cratering, the JFNA professional in charge gave the Network staff the last week in December off. Guess they had been working way too hard to achieve a close to a 50% reduction in campaign and all those Jewish and secular holidays and contractual vacation time just weren't enough.

     ~ As a "solution" to the issues raised by the Network leadership in 2008-2009, Kathy Manning appointed a Committee to study the Network and report back...to her. The end product, the Network Executive Committee, a body of lay leaders elected by the Network and thoroughly committed to the Network and its goals -- men and women of character, leadership, commitment and high achievement -- was eliminated, substituting an "Advisory Committee" that she appointed out of her "vast experience" with the Network (uh, make that "none"). Presumably, this Advisory Committee is made up of those who are JFNA.

     ~ Steve Scheck is the new Network Chair. A terrific leader from a great leadership family in Miami, Steve had no experience in the Network, came from outside of it and is now expected to chair its work. This would be strange were it not JFNA where, you will recall, the immediate past Chair of Israel-Overseas was from a community that made no allocation to the core budgets of JAFI/JDC.

So, questions: who is running the Network -- the lay leadership (now defenestrated at Ms. Manning's direction) or the professional leadership (and just what is the CEO/President's role here -- does he even know what's going on?) where, I am told, more than 1/2 the professional staff has left since Rhea Attias's firing?

The treatment of the Network is wholly reflective of the "new culture" at JFNA. It's ugly.

Rwexler

PETARD HOISTING

2012-01-20T05:30:00.001-06:00

Back in the early Fall of 2010 JFNA's Board Chair and its CEO and President began pressing the Jewish Agency and Joint to enter into a tri-party agreement that would bind each and all of them to certain underlying understandings. I know the terms of the resultant Agreement of November 2010 because the Jewish Agency and JDC asked me to represent both of them in the negotiations -- over the JFNA Board Chair's opposition, expressed in an ugly, angry and hostile way. I saw my role as both an advocate for JAFI/JDC and as one who would strive to find common ground with JFNA/Manning/Silverman.

You should know that the Board Chair, as is her style, in order to control the "process," dictated a Draft apparently expecting that it would be accepted by the Agency and Joint as she had determined in her sole discretion. Eventually, thanks in large measure to Cleveland's Steve Hoffman's playing the role of shuttle diplomat, an agreement was reached that, in the main, reflected Manning's original draft. There was to be a Global Planning Table in form and substance agreeable to the Jewish Agency and JDC and tied thereto would be a Second JFNA Membership Criterion that would by the express terms of the Agreement "...increase overseas allocations to support the important work of JAFI and JDC."

Throughout, the JFNA Board Chair demanded a "Severability Clause" that in reality stood the contractual concept of "severability" on its head. Typically, such clauses are intended to assure that "[I]nvalidity or unenforceability of one or more provisions of this Agreement shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement." The Board Chair to the contrary demanded the following language: "The provisions of this Agreement are not severable. The parties have agreed to this Agreement in its entirety." Ooops. Now the Chair is hoisted on her own petard...arising directly out of her own leadership, or lack thereof. Thus, there can be no GPT without a viable Second Membership Criterion, among other things.

Yes, JFNA has brought forward for consideration (but not action) a Second Membership Criterion that assures that overseas allocations will not "increase the important work of JAFI and JDC." JFNA action on the Second Membership Criterion as drafted places JFNA in breach of its own Agreement -- nothing new there -- but also in breach of the fiduciary duties that were explicitly incorporated into the merger that created JFNA itself. From JFNA -- a shrug, a "so what; we tried." JFNA committed by its execution of its own dictated agreement to lead an effort in support of that to which it committed. It didn't.

The national system -- JFNA -- was created to protect, enhance and increase the resources of the federations and its partners. Instead, this leadership has dedicated itself to the deconstruction of that which we believed to be sacred. The fiduciary crisis that our system now faces is one created by the system itself...hoisted on its own petard.

This is not leadership. It's shameful.

Rwexler

CLUELESS

2012-01-19T05:30:00.000-06:00

It was only a short while ago, while reviewing JFNA's By-Laws (something its leaders might consider doing but I admit its easier to ignore them if you have no idea what's in them and just want to change them so much), that I came upon an Amendment just one year old. You probably had forgotten it as had JFNA's leaders, The JFNA Resolution of December 16, 2010, provided, among other things, for the termination of ONAD (surprise, it's back, only much, much worse), and, then in pertinent part: "...the agreement pursuant to which JFNA guarantees the UIA revolving term loan requiring consent by the lending banks to any change in the ONAD methodology..." continuing that "...this resolution shall be subject to referral of the proposed ONAD change to the lending banks to obtain the banks' consent."

OK? Simple, right?

I sent the Resolution on to responsible leaders questioning whether the GPT change had likewise been referred for lender consent. Oooooops. Turned out the December 2010 termination of ONAD HAD NEVER BEEN REVIEWED WITH JFNA's BANKS, let alone the GPT Resolution. So, by the time my Post -- A Prescription for Chaos -- published on December 22, JFNA thought they could say "what's Wexler writing about? He's so wrong." After all, we live in what Paul Krugman has termed "the post-truth era." But, and this is big "but" -- having negotiated with so many Banks over the course of my law practice, in such a complex organizational environment, I would guess that all the lenders said, was, when they got JFNA's Cliff Notes explanation of the changes, "we want some times to look into this," no consent, just temporizing. The assumption is that the UIA loan will continue to be paid down out of whatever allocations to JAFI core remain after the devastation that the GPT will wreak.

But, there's the rub. The explicit intent of the GPT sponsors (and many federations, sadly) is to eradicate the federations' core allocations to JAFI and JDC. At the end of this calendar year, only those federations which have represented to the Joint and JAFI that they will continue core allocations at current levels will continue to do so (JFNA clearly will engage in no advocacy on the "partners'" behalf). But, if no other federations join them, those federations will be supporting the repayment of $53 million plus interest. And, where's JFNA? Out of touch, in the dark...CLUELESS.

This is how our system works today. And, yes, no one thanked me. Hard to believe, I know.

Rwexler

SO MANY THINGS ARE NONE OF OUR BUSINESS

2012-01-16T05:30:00.002-06:00

Since we returned to these pages one of the things about JFNA's constant lack of accountability and "new culture" that has concerned us the most has been that only a small group of "leaders" has been made privy to matters that should be the concern of all of us. Consider, if you will, litigation against the organization.

As it turns out, in September 2010, Rhea Attias, once a respected professional who rose to the position of "Managing Director" of JFNA's Network of close to 400 non-federated communities constituting the Network of Independent Communities, filed a multi-count Complaint against JFNA in Federal Court in New York arising out of her 2009 termination. Among Attias' allegations were: "...(she was) paid lower wages and benefits than similarly situated male employees who performed the same job functions under similar working conditions;" additional discriminatory actions including age and sex; violation of agreed-upon pension benefits; and interfering with her job prospects "...by spreading false and misleading information...and by otherwise disparaging her accomplishments, abilities and employment history."

And, of course, JFNA's lawyers have filed what is basically a blanket denial to all of the allegations. Curiously, they have filed a motion to assure that a list of JFNA's employees' salaries be sealed, denying access to that info of which they want no one to know. This is JFNA's focus of course.

The more important fact is not that a lawsuit claiming sex and age discrimination has been filed. That can happen. The bottom line question is: have you ever heard anything about this lawsuit? Has there been any disclosure to the Board, to the federations, to JFNA's auditors? Are there other pending lawsuits against JFNA, its employees and officers? Or is this kind of thing none of our business...like so much else at JFNA.

This entire Post -- none of your business, of course.

Rwexler

MY MISTAKE -- YOU CAN FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME

2012-01-12T05:30:00.000-06:00

Yes, I was totally wrong. The current JFNA leaders have proved that you can fool all of the people all of the time. In fact, you can even fool those one thought would be the ones who would first argue that the Emperor/Empress wears no clothes. What am I writing about? Read on...

JFNA Board members just received the By-Law Amendments that will be considered at the February Retreat. In the main, these have nothing to do with the health or success of JFNA or making JFNA more critical to the best of our system, to those who contribute the most but, as always these days, about the accretion of power to the Chair.

Examples?

1. The Delegate Assembly was designed to create a check and balance on the JFNA Board. Thus, voting at the Board was one Board member one vote; at the Delegate Assembly, votes were distributed in a weighted fashion, thereby assuring that those who contribute the most to JFNA had the greatest number of votes on Budget and more. Now, no more Delegate Assembly; to these "leaders" it's but a vestige of the past. No check, no balance any more. And to justify themselves, they just rewrite history.

In the JFNA "explanatory" Memorandum on the By-Law changes, leadership wants you to believe that the Delegate Assembly was nothing more than a relic from the CJF era...that would be wrong...so wrong. The Assembly was created at the time of the merger; what was incorporated from CJF was only...only...the formula used for weighted voting, a complex combination of campaign and Jewish population, (And, because JFNA was apparently too "busy" rewriting history, the formula was unchanged from 1999 even though governance required annual modification.)

The Assembly was also to be a place for representation in JFNA's work by representatives of our religious streams, our partners, academics, JAFI, JDC and others. This was discussed and debated at length -- the religious stream leaders considering this minimal representation insulting and worse. (I know because I spent hours in these discussions.) Now, as some argued at the time of the merger, JFNA's leaders have assured that there is no place for them at JFNA. Was this history ever discussed by JFNA leaders with anyone? (That's a rhetorical question.)

Yes, it's pitiful but, after all, they are JFNA.

2. The Merger Agreement determined that there was to be a Board Chair and a Chair of the Executive. It seemed like a good idea at the time -- a Chair of the Board who would be a mega-donor (a Bronfman or, at the time, a Bobby Goldberg) offering not only the example of his/her generosity but new ideas and program proposals, and a Chair of the Executive who would be someone knowledgeable of our system (a Tauber, a Sonny Plant, z'l) who would lead an "operating Executive" dealing with JFNA operational matters. (had Manning understood her role as Chair of the Executive one has to wonder whether the morally bankrupt serial termination of women during her three years would have been tolerated.) Over time, the original concept was ignored and, in the current iteration of roles, with a self-described "full-time volunteer" as Board Chair, zealous to arrogate all matters JFNA to herself and not good about sharing with others, it has been evident that the Chair of the Executive was an appendix that required a By-Lawectomy. A Chairman of the Executive -- no more. After all, it's tough to have two microphones operating at the same time -- especially when one person wants both. I have to give Michael Gelman credit for his patience and leadership here, but not for his apparent acquiescence.

3. And to those federations who were assured...promised...guaranteed...that there would be a "best we could get" Second Membership Criterion? There is a "model" floating around out there; one so weak and pathetic it represents "the least" not the "best ." Remember JFNA's leaders told you that the November 2010 Agreement with the Joint and Jewish Agency promised a Second Membership Criterion that promised the two "partners" greater funding ("...to increase overseas allocations to support the important work of JAFI and JDC"); and are now proposing a Membership Criterion that promises the opposite. Seems JFNA promises, assurances and guarantees were as misleading as the JFNA signature to that Agreement with JAFI and JDC in November 2010. That is to say...MEANINGLESS.

4. Finally, I have great respect for the lay and professional leaders of World ORT, but just exactly when did ORT (or is it World ORT, or ORT America or ORT Israel...who knows for sure) become a federation partner, a co-equal with the Jewish Agency and the Joint? Some friendship the Board Chair has with an ORT-something Chair? There's no there there. One of those ORTs is being fooled -- not invited to the GPT meeting in Florida...but in these By-Laws a "partner?" Come on. What's up with this...and why? The cash to the ORT from federations allocations through JFNA in 2011 was 1.45% of the infinitely small aggregate of allocations to JAFI/JDC. Terming ORT a "partner" is terribly misleading to all, and especially ORT itself. JFNA -- handing out the title "partner" and making it meaningless.

Someone STAND UP!!

Rwexler

NOSTALGIA

2012-01-09T05:30:00.000-06:00

With many of you I received one of those JFNA e-vites that have become so ubiquitous. This one was addressed to Calling All NYL Young Leadership Alumni. Like many of you, I'm certain we had no idea what the NYL was or is. (I'm pretty sure these "branders" didn't really mean the duplicative "National Young Leadership Young Leadership.") Like the JFNA Board Chair, like so many of you, I served with great pride and passion on the UJA National Young Leadership Cabinet -- guess for the band of Jerryites, to call it what it was would be bad for "the JFNA brand." So, while I know we are living through 1984 all over again, I drifted into a moment of nostalgia.

When the merger created what is today JFNA, the leaders of UJA, CJF and the Large City Federation Executives joined together to elect Charles Bronfman and Joel Tauber as the Board Chair and Chair of the Executive, respectively, of the new entity. Charles was a given -- his enthusiasm for the merger best evidenced by the loan of the President of the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies of its President, Jeffery Solomon. Jeff, in turn, steered us through many difficulties to the "success" that emerged. Tauber was greeted with less enthusiasm -- no embrace from Bronfman and, in some minds, a vestige of the predecessor organizations. Many of us in leadership of the merger fought for Joel as one who knew our system as Charles did not. The Large City Execs concurred and so it went. As it turned out, not well. Joel seemed to have forgotten what our system was about and appeared more eager to forget the past than build upon it. By the time their two year terms were over (how did these terms now stretch out to three one year terms remains a mystery), Charles, certainly, had found this leadership experience frustrating -- Joel not so much.

So, why write about this now, you ask? Writing in the Wall Street Journal Daniel Henninger asked, in another context, if it was time to Bring Back the Smoke-Filled Rooms? Under JFNA's circumstances, the question is both apt and timely. For a long time our national system has selected its Chairs and CEOs in those very "smoke-filled rooms" (sans smoke, of course). Back in the day, the UJA National Chair was selected in a closed process that, over the years, evolved from the selection of a preeminent philanthropist to those more closely connected to the federations. At the Council of Jewish Federations, the "smoke-filled rooms" selection process chose great leaders like Cardin, Goodman and Wishner but, at the end of its days, leaders were trading promises ("elect me this time and I promise we'll elect you next time") for excellence. Having participated in the first few Nominating Committees at JFNA, I can attest that superb candidates were too often rejected out of personal animus on the part of ex officio Committee members or the personal and public (albeit behind closed doors) virulent intervention of a JFNA CEO. The result has been that top leadership of JFNA has become more the captive of a self-perpetuating oligarchy than was ever the case at CJF or UJA.

I have always feared for the system when lay leadership was placed in the hands of the "full-time volunteer" -- that fear is exacerbated when the chief professional lacks systemic experience. The result is and has been a perceptible imbalance in the lay-professional partnership -- a partnership so vital to a successful non-profit enterprise; one that embodies the checks and balances necessary to responsible governance. Where the enterprise is governed by those lacking in well-rounded communal leadership experience, and when the organization's polity is disinterested or self-interested, the organization clearly will be driven here and there distracted too often by shiny new objects in what has been termed "raccoon management." That's what we are and have been experiencing; and we will continue to experience it at a cost of $30.3 million per year.

We're lost, wandering aimlessly, wasting donors' funds 24/6.

Rwexler

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE WATER?

2012-01-06T05:30:00.001-06:00

The question raised by the title to this Post relates to what appears to be a repetition of a disease that seems to afflict those in power in the corporate offices of JFNA, whether at 111 8th Avenue or, now, 25 Broadway, over the past six years. Comments sent anonymously to the Blog and phone calls demanding confidentiality have revealed that it appears that once again...

Those professionals not in favor are being subjected to the kind of tactics that would be impermissible in a private business let alone a public charity, let alone a Jewish workplace;
At the highest level of the organization, lay persons and professionals who are out of favor with the "powers that be" are subjected to scathing private ridicule behind closed doors, smiles outside of it;
Professionals who are out of favor are "frozen out" by the JFNA professional leadership. Worse, in some instances, JFNA has taken steps to undermine communal confidence in certain professional leaders around the country, no matter the City-size, while sometimes publicly embracing them.

Those who behave in this manner should, of course, be ashamed of themselves. Worse, they clearly fail to understand that in undermining "A" they threaten "B" through "Z." But, then again, ~~maybe~~...~~maybe~~...they just don't care. After all, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Rwexler

A BRIEF HISTORY

2012-01-03T05:30:00.001-06:00

Back in the day, in 1996 or 1997, Tom Friedman, the same Israel basher then as he is today, wrote some particularly scathing attacks on the Israeli Prime Minister. They were not of the "bought and paid for" or "engineered" as recently, but ugly and harsh and unreasoned. Other than our protests to and in The New York Times and our public and private outrage, there was little that the organized Jewish community could do. I was the United Jewish Appeal National Chairman at the time.

I thought about the hundreds of thousands of dollars in speakers fees our system had paid to Friedman over the years. I called the professional responsible for UJA's Speakers Bureau and asked her for Tom Friedman's direct line at The Times. She said, as I recall, "why don't I give you his agent's number." I said that wouldn't do, and that I would call her back later. I then reached Friedman at his desk. "Tom," I said, "We met at (I think it was) the UJA Palm Beach Event last month. I am the UJA Chair. I wanted to call you personally to tell you directly that so long as I am Chair, you will not speak at another United Jewish Appeal Event." Friedman responded, "How did you get this number?" I then told him that if I had the power to do so, he would not speak at another Jewish Federation event as his then recent attacks on Israel and its Prime Minister were reprehensible, inexplicable and unforgivable. As I recall, he hung up on me.

Friedman did not speak at a UJA event ever again. My recollection is that the CJF issued a public rebuke of Friedman, an unusual act for the Council. Today, we have heard strong public admonitions from the American Jewish Committee and ADL and others, but JCPA, bought and paid for by the federations...nothing, even as The Jewish Week, in a strong and balanced editorial, accused Friedman and the NYT of dangerous words of delegitimization. And, from our JFNA? The organization that was constructed to be, at least in part, our spokesperson...mute...can't find its voice. Too busy with Tribefest or the GPT, (JFNA's "highest priority," we have been told). Tragic.

But, long after the fact, JFNA issued a strong statement against the increased fundamentalist violence in Israel itself -- what one of my friends characterized as "leading from behind." It was an excellent statement but how many fingers had to test the direction of the wind before these excellent strong words were written. Then, we are promised, by the Sr. V-P, Israel and Overseas, that she and Jerry "...will be meeting...with top government officials and political leaders to share our concerns about the damage that recent events can have on the Israel-Diaspora relationship and to offer our help and support to those seeking to heal these gaps." As was the case in JFNA's only confrontation with the political process in Israel over the "Who is a Jew" issue, the professionals, without a playbook want to go it alone. Not even a thought given to mobilizing JFNA let alone federation lay leadership on issues that affect us -- and, why? Because they don't know how. Is there still a JFNA Israel and Overseas Committee, Commission or Work Group? (We know there is a lay Chair...JFNA told us so.) If so, what is its function? Can it be mobilized? This is a terrible time for those who are sightless to be leading the blind...or presuming we are so.

The times cry out for leaders to lead...instead, we throw $30.3 million of our donors precious gifts in the air and hope it lands some place we might care about. We're the drunken sailors of Jewish communal life.

Rwexler

IS THERE A PROBLEM?

2011-12-30T05:30:00.000-06:00

Back in the shadows of history -- at JFNA that means a year ago -- JFNA demanded an agreement among itself, JAFI and JDC. Among the matters agreed to in November 2010 was the following: JFNA will work with Federations in an effort to increase overseas allocations to support the important work of JAFI and JDC. An allocations floor was to be created -- a "communal norm" -- and "Federations with chronic underperformance will risk losing JFNA membership and its attendant benefits." This was entirely JFNA's language submitted to the Agency and Joint; but, they didn't mean it.

Then, only months later, without further consultation with JAFI or JDC, this entire construct was lost; the Agreement breached by JFNA which had dictated its terms. In the overarching complexity of the Global Planning Table structure, major federations demanded that federation service on the GPT be linked to an overseas funding minimum (the "Second Membership Criterion"), thusly: All federations that meet the criteria for membership in JFNA will be invited to nominate representatives to sit on the Priority Area Commissions and the Voluntary Projects Commission. (But) [t]o have a seat on the Global Planning Table Committee (where funding recommendations will be discussed) and the Executive Steering Committee (where funding recommendations will be made), Federations will need to meet a higher threshold, representing a strong, demonstrated commitment to funding collective work (but not necessarily the core, collective work of the Jewish Agency or Joint). A still higher funding threshold is required to be on the Partnership Committee (where allocations decisions will be made).

You may (or may not) recall that you or your federation actually voted on this inane bureaucracy-driven structure that, if you reread the paragraph above, includes Priority Area Commissions, Voluntary Projects Commission, Global Planning Table Committee, Executive Steering Committee and Partnership Committee for starters. To avoid further confusion, the draftspersons have included a chart specifying "Participation Standards" (what my friends have characterized as "this was the best we could do"):

    ~ To participate on the Executive Steering Committee and GPT -- "funding to GPT partners (elsewhere specified by JFNA as "JAFI/JDC and other partners" but herein not referenced as the "Historic Partners") and collective projects + 20% or more of campaign or more than $7 million"

    ~ Want to serve on the Partnership Committee?   "Unrestricted plus other giving to Historic Partners + 20% of campaign"

    ~ On the Priority Area Commissions -- nothing but paid JFNA Dues

This so-called "Second Membership Criterion" (which was intended to be a floor for membership in JFNA but was downgraded with the consent of concerned federations to "membership" on the GPT) was to be coupled with the GPT Resolution at a vote of the JFNA Board and Assembly at the GA meetings. With no explanation and, not surprisingly, without a single question, the Second Membership Criterion was deferred, allegedly to be voted on at the January Board Retreat. But, will it be?

Is there some problem? Are the lowest- and non-allocating federations objecting to even a 20% so-called floor for participation on the GPT Executive? Are the JFNA leaders working on further watering down the already unbelievably weak Criterion to satisfy the outliers? Or are the "outliers" today those who demand a Second Membership Criterion at all? Has the begging already begun with JFNA leaders pleading to those who have coupled participation on the GPT and/or membership in JFNA itself, with this meaningless Second Membership Criterion to back off as "you'll otherwise bring down the system?" After all this "guilt-tripping" has worked for the last six years, hasn't it?

In October 2010, the Jewish Agency and Joint leadership wrote JFNA's leaders and asserted, in pertinent part, that the Global Planning Table as proposed to the federations does not "...accurately reflect the prolonged discussions that lead up to the execution of the contract covering allocations for calendar year 2010 through 2012 and the creation of the GPT." These Historic Partners were ignored.

The totality of the "process" leading to the approval of the Global Planning Table can be characterized by federations being told whatever might buy their votes, notwithstanding whether true or false. Expect more of the same.

Rwexler

A LITTLE KVELLING

2011-12-27T05:30:00.000-06:00

I have been blessed having learned the lessons of philanthropy, capacity giving and collective responsibility from my community. When I read of the supposed "achievement" of another Federation (hint: the one with the most Jewish lawyers of any community in the world), which raised $1.6 million at its annual Lawyers Division dinner (our Lawyers Division in Chicago is raising about $9 million) or of 1,200 young adults attending the meaningless Tribefest earlier this year, I almost have to cry. Instead, focus with me if you will on Chicago's Young Leaders Mega-Event held on December 11...

The Event, held at the Chicago Sheraton, was headlined by NBC's Jimmy Fallon, and attracted 2,600...yes, you read it correctly...young men and women, who paid $80 per person. The 2,600 included 600 Birthright alumni and 1,000 members of Chicago's young leaders Ben Gurion Society -- men and women who contribute $1,000 and over to the Annual Campaign. And, yes, there was the dinner and the comedy...but, remember, this was a fund-raising event as any and every Chicago JUF/JFMC Event is.

Yes, some of you will dismiss this as "sure, that's Chicago; it doesn't work here in ___________. We could never do that." And, I think you are so wrong. What's needed: a dedicated core of young leaders; an understanding that the community must invest money to secure not only the future but the present; an enthusiastic and creative group of campaign professionals; and an understanding by all that "if I don't do this, who will?" It takes volunteers who call their friends, their colleagues, their business associates and say: "Are you going to the Event? I have a table and would love it if you would join me. It's going to be terrific." And, the word spreads and the room fills to overflowing...and then you begin to plan for and worry about next year.

What does this all mean: for Chicago it means that we are in the process, with Birthright and others, of securing the Next Generation for and within our community. Instead, I see other communities and our national organization distracted from their core purposes...and, then, wondering about why they have fallen so fast and so far. There's no magic to this -- there is focus, hard work, passion and dedication. You can do this as well.

Rwexler

THE MYTH OF A "NEW PHILANTHROPIC MODEL"

2011-12-24T05:30:00.000-06:00

Lately a number of federations have "unveiled" what some have termed to be "A New Philanthropic Model." Seattle, Philadelphia and San Francisco are but the latest to roll out "designated/thematic giving models" as if they are something both new and innovative. Instead they are but new wine in old bottles and, in the places they are now proposed, probably doomed to fail. Based upon prior experience (yes, these are far from "new"), the so-called "new model" is DOA -- dead on its arrival, as much today as the first time.

First, this ain't my first rodeo, you know. I have visited any number of communities who have thrown this "model" on the table as if it would be some form of panacea. Let's first look at what it purports to offer: typically the "model" gives the donor several options for reworking what was or might be their federation gift. Thus, the federation creates a series of buckets into which the donor can now deposit his/her contribution -- e.g., the aging, Jewish education, Israel and Overseas, caring for the vulnerable, and the like. Some federations only allow such designation after the donor makes a threshold undesignated pledge -- there is that bugaboo -- overhead -- after all. Sounds so appealing.

But the results in those communities which have dipped their toes in this water offer a cautionary tale: the only federations which have experienced any success with this model are those who have built it upon the foundation of a strong annual campaign to begin with. Those who believe that their communal giving will in some way, shape or form be "rescued" by a thematic giving model, in any of its forms, have experienced universal disappointment.

Yes, I have heard the breast-beating about the "black hole" as some federation lay and, this always surprises me, senior professionals characterize the annual campaign. In doing so, of course, they poison the well themselves and hear their description echo back at them in destructive ways. Typically those that ascribe the "black hole" description to their annual campaigns are defeatists and, too often, those who have been hired or elected to think "outside the boxes." It is as if these "leaders" know nothing of the beauty of federation work and believe that by throwing out the baby with the bath water, something new and of greater value will emerge. And they have been proved wrong, time and time again.

No doubt there are federations which have adopted thematic giving and put the construct in place for years now without appreciable campaign impact whose leaders will argue that "it would have been worse" had the community not broken away from the traditional model. And, surely, there are communities where the donors believe that the federation no longer deserves the trust so vital to community building and collective action. The way I see it, in too many of the federations turning to the designation model today, we are seeing the choice driven by: this lack of trust, the thought that a "new" scheme will buy time for the professionals implementing it, and a consistent failure to nurture donors and make the right "ask" of them.

The first implementation of a "designated FRD model" arose out of a false premise -- "our most major donors have topped out their annual campaign gifts and we have to offer them something new over and above." The reality was something different -- instead of a sit-down face-to-face between solicitor and donor, with an explanation of the ever-increasing needs and how that donor's increased gift at the top end would influence donations through to lower levels of giving, the community acquiesced. It was too easy a way out, even if it rarely worked. And, as the campaign years went forward, the "new" concept rooted in the overall campaign, with often disastrous results. Now, in too many places, the rhetoric of "new philanthropic models" overwhelms the vapidity of the "model" itself.

So, when I read this month that a Large City federation that has effectively been without a real annual campaign for the last two years "...announced the creation of four new funds for development and grant-making...(and) also approved two key focus areas designed to complement the shift towards donor-focused funding models," all I could do was shake my head in wonder. And here is what that Federation's CEO stated: "The shift to focused funds and high-impact initiatives marks a turning point in the Federation's 100-year existence. With the goal of creating lasting, system-wide social change, the Federation will be a leader of best practices in strategic philanthropy." While I rest my case, there's more.

Another federated community announced the "new philanthropic model" this month with a "...focus...to connect donor passions to meaningful impact in the Jewish community." I, dinosaur that I am, call that "the Annual Campaign," but they don't -- that's so 1990s. As this Federation's CEO and President opined: "This program has been specially designed to really involve the donor in their investment and see the impact they've made. Donors now have a much more intimate relationship with the entire philanthropic process, by deciding what area the donation should assist and how it's making a difference in our world." Oh, if only wishing made it so. When federations, as these, elevate donor choice from the donor to the federation itself, just as they have moved donor choice by their GA vote to the Global Planning Table, to JFNA, even more distant, the donor loses, its agencies and partners lose and, ultimately, the system is lost.

Here is my alternative for that federation's (and all federations') CEO. Bring together your top 10 donors. Tell them the stark truth: that the federation will cease to exist as a federation unless each of them is willing to commit to increase his or her annual gift to a level; that will allow the community to grow and serve the needs that the community itself and its agencies and partners have identified as the communal base line (not the "themes," not the "donor-focused funding models" -- the base line of communal needs). Then announce your personal committed gift and ask each top donor to announce hers/his. If the answer to the "ask" is "no," then understand that you are in the wrong place or, perhaps, in the wrong position. For if leadership is unwilling to lead, there is no future.

Rwexler

A PRESCRIPTION FOR CHAOS

2011-12-22T05:30:00.000-06:00

With a few others, I listened to the JFNA presentation on the JFNA yesterday. I say "few" because the "presentation," such as it was, lasted all of 15 minutes, the entire conference call, scheduled for 1-1/2 hours, lasted a precious 35 minutes. Seven federation leaders asked questions, JFNA's answers generally had nothing to do with the questions asked.

Here's what I concluded --

JFNA has asked the federations to conduct surveys of whomever they wish (preferably using some JFNA-prepared survey) and report the results in March-April; JFNA will be surveying a whole bunch of people, affiliated and not affiliated (surely to include those attending Festivus II). The "results" will "inform" the GPT decision-making process. If this is not a formula for chaos, pray tell what would be. Is this just a pretext to allow the GPT Executive to do whatever it wants?
The federations have a lot more to do in December than attend bogus Conference Calls on a matter that is "JFNA's highest priority" (per Jerry Silverman) but no one else's. Yes, most federations are trying to close campaigns and collect cash -- two things with which JFNA acts as if is totally unfamiliar. JFNA's GPT senior pro thanked those on the phone for "the great turnout" -- she has already fallen into the JFNA formula that combines fiction, hyperboole and overstatement into "Orwellian fact."
JAFI and JDC are nothing more than "observers" (JFNA's description) in a GPT "process" designed to deracinate their core allocations. This is not what either overseas partner was told; this is not what was promised by JFNA in its November 2010 Agreement with the partners.
The federations have guaranteed a loan now reduced to $50 million owed by its subsidiary UIA arising out of the application of Operation Exodus campaign funds to domestic resettlement. That loan requires the lenders' consent to any change in the allocations to JAFI. To my knowledge, the lenders' consent has not been sought to the proposed change in allocations contemplated by the GPT. Has JFNA disclosed to these lenders the impacts on the assumed JAFI core as written into the GPT document? What will JFNA tell these lenders -- "trust us?" For that matter did JFNA ever...ever...disclose to the federations that the outstanding loans could be accelerated by virtue of the GPT itself? That was rhetorical.
Critical to the GPT moving forward is the enactment of a Second Membership Criterion, weak as it might be, in addition to the payment of JFNA Dues -- a meager percentage to Israel and Overseas needs. Yet, JFNA took that Criterion off the table at the GA promising that it would be enacted at the January Owners' Retreat. Anyone heard any more about it? Do JFNA's leaders intend to meet that promise or are they finding unanticipated opposition to the imposition of any allocations floor, even a meaningless one, and now expect the federations to which the commitment was made to back off, once again?
Yesterday one federation leader publicly asked how JFNA will "manage" JAFI and JDC vis-a-vis their community FRD in 2012. The JFNA leaders on the conference call appeared not to understand the question inasmuch as they didn't answer it. JFNA has been trying to impose a veto over any Joint or Jewish Agency fundraising. That would be ridiculous under any circumstance, but, given the JFNA unilateral breach of the November 2010 Agreement with JA and JDC, any such suggestion is outrageous.

There's more, but this is food for thought -- like a bad latke, indigestion inducing. Is anyone asking "what have we gotten ourselves into this time?"

Chag sameach,

Rwexler

CONFLICT OF INTEREST, JFNA AND THE GPT

2011-12-21T05:30:00.001-06:00

A recent impassioned Anonymous Comment to the Global Planning Table -- Update Post, citing Kathy Manning's pre-GA quote in the Forward -- "One of the things we've lost over the years is the understanding of what our partners do, how they use our dollars to make a real impact on the needs that they deal with" -- observed "[F]or seven years Manning has sat on JAFI's Board of Governors and on its Executive" and called for he to "[G]et off the JAFI Dais." While that would be painful to Ms. Manning, it is hardly enough.

I had written about Manning's quote when it first appeared suggesting that the reason that any failure in "...understanding what our partners do..." has been JFNA's failure to advocate, failure to articulate what JAFI and the Joint do, failure to stand side-by-side with them. I compared her position with that of the hypothecated child who having killed both his parents now asks the court for mercy because she is an orphan. But the Comment itself raised an even more serious question of conflict of interest.

Each of us wears many hats in our roles in Jewish communal life -- our Federation Boards include agency lay leaders, we serve on the boards of the Joint, the Agency, ORT, etc, while serving on our federation Boards, we serve om the JFNA Board while on the Boards of other organizations. In the past, while some might accuse us of having conflicts by this service on multiple Boards, the reality was that our system was always pulling together. I, or you, could serve on, e.g., the Joint Board and our federation Board and on the UJA Board -- even, in earlier years, the JFNA Board, knowing that we shared a common purpose, a common passion and a common commitment. But, for the past six years, and, certainly, the past three years, the commonality of vision, purpose, passion and commitment have been rent asunder led by the leaders of JFNA.

Common definitions of "conflict of interest" include: (1) a situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a leader because of the possibility of a clash between the leader's self-interest (pecuniary or not) and the public interest the leader is to serve; and (2) a situation in which a party's responsibility to a second party limits its ability to discharge a responsibility to a third party.

The leaders of JFNA have a disqualifying conflict of interest in their service to JDC or the Jewish Agency that they have brought upon themselves. And, they know it. They demanded an agreement among JFNA, JAFI and JDC -- they got one one year ago and they have breached not only its intent and its good will but the good faith in which it was negotiated and executed. Over the past years they have schemed to create a Global Planning Table that, while not yet having even held a single meeting, dictates outcomes -- no longer is there even the sense of exclusivity of JAFI/JDC as "the partners" but the outright admission to "other partners." Where was this decided? By whom?

So, I had to laugh when I learned that one piece of the GPT Conference Call on December 19 consisted of a lecture by Ms. Manning on conflict of interest. She clearly hasn't a clue. Perhaps that's one of the reasons contributing to an irate Large City Executive asking at the end of that one hour call: "why did you waste my time?" When the public interest a lay Chair has been elected to serve (not the other way around) clashes with that leader's obligation, there is a conflict of interest requiring (1) recognition and (2) resignation. Ms. Manning, as Commentators to this Blog and correspondents directly to you have demanded: simply resign.

Rwexler

MORE HELL IN A HAND BASKET!

2011-12-18T05:30:00.001-06:00

The hand basket is overflowing; alas, there is always more...

~ Apparently "hiring outside the box" has reached its nadir. Which one of the following is not true: (a) one federation hired a real estate developer as its CEO; (b) another hired a heath care consultant as its major gifts director; (c) that major gifts director, also a "licensed" minister; or (d) a former car dealer was hired as a Campaign Director?

~ The Forward published compensation numbers for the professional leaders of a number of Jewish organizations thereby, no doubt, infuriating any number of CEOs (some for no reason, others for some reason and one, in particular, for every possible reason). Most would like to just see the list never appear and would love it if it quickly disappeared from the public eye. Nonetheless, in case anyone in the federation system had missed it, where did it next appear? In Jerry's Daily Media Report. Why? "Mentions JFNA and federations." And that's part of the reason that Jerry received, as per The Forward 2011 Salary Review, a compensation increase of $55,000 -- to $625,000!!! (Maybe Jerry will pop for some of the Tribefest deficit.) Luckily for that CEO, there's no recession at 25 Broadway...never has been, in fact.

~ I was wrong. When I observed that one of JFNA's best professionals, Sam Astrof, was retiring at year-end, I noted that there was nary a mention let alone a tribute to Sam at the GA but that, at least, he was given a "thank you" at the JFNA Budget and Finance Committee meeting there. Turns out, I was misinformed -- not even at that meeting was Sam appropriately recognized and honored. Must not have been in the script.

Sam: you have done great things in service to our communities and People. I know you are too vigorous to ever retire so I expect those great things to continue. You were incredibly loyal and always overflowing with your integrity and love for Israel. You will be missed so much by those who don't even realize how much they will miss you.

Rwexler

THE GROWING LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY

2011-12-15T05:30:00.000-06:00

We are the stewards of our donors funds in a system wholly dependent upon trust. Each year we see the federations we entrust with our funds send $30.3 million on to JFNA and, then, we ignore how those funds are spent, relying upon JFNA to properly invest those funds in programs we have approved in the annual JFNA Budgets and to monitor those expenditures. And, then again, we promptly forget how precious those $30.3 million are. Let's examine our abdication of responsibility to an organization that has demonstrated none, in just a few area:

Back a few years JFNA participated in an airlift of Yemeni Jews to Monsey, New York. After many Posts decrying JFNA's involvement in this so-called "rescue effort" (which turned out to have been unnecessary), JFNA's more responsible professionals sent me an accounting of the underfunded project; they didn't send it to you or, for that matter, anyone else. What funds have been raised and spent on this effort; you can ask until you are blue in the face.
We have cited the losses of over half a million dollars...that's over $500,000, friends...on the 2010 GA and Tribefest 1. How are those deficits paid? Nobody's saying.
The Board Chair and CEO sent out a fund-raising plea to the federations to Finish the Journey of Ethiopian Jewry -- to bring the final remnant of Falash Mura to Israel this year. How much has been raised? How much has been transmitted to the Jewish Agency? Nobody's saying.
When the Israel Action Network was initiated as a "partnership" between JFNA and JCPA (rapidly translated into an "independent entity" effort) to fight the venality of threatened divestment, boycott and delegitimization, JFNA again was charged with raising the millions to fund the effort. That, of course, failed. The JFNA polity (viz, the Large Cities) then demanded that JFNA fund the IAN from its Budget...and, so, it was done. But who is assuring that funds intended for the work of the IAN are not being spent in significant part to prop up the budget/staff of the JCPA? Nobody's saying.

Friends these are but the tip of an iceberg of irresponsibility, of an abdication of JFNA's and its leaders responsibility...and ours. But, who's asking?

Rwexler

GLOBAL PLANNING TABLE -- UPDATE

2011-12-12T05:30:00.000-06:00

The Global Planning Table (the "GPT"), as all of you know, was approved by the few federations voting, at the GA. So much has been written about the GPT, I thought I would offer an update:

     ~ The only bit of good news was last week's announcement of the naming of Washington's David Butler as the GPT Chair. David, if permitted, will do an excellent job. Now, will David also Chair the multiple other smaller Tables including the critical Executive Committee?

    ~ It appears that the Board Chair has determined that she will vet the names of all those named by their federations to sit at the various smaller tables (Partnership, Executive, etc.) and the "big" Table. Guess you wouldn't want anyone "not JFNA" infecting the non-existent "process." Inasmuch as the GPT is really about control, not about "planning" after all, what else would you expect?

     ~ The first meeting of the big "Table" was originally set for December 19, face-to-face. Now, that's been changed to some kind of massive telephone conference call. Expect more rhetoric and nothing accomplished.

     ~ One of the more comprehensive Comments on the GPT, albeit long after the fray, former long-time CJF professional, and past Director of the Fisher-Bernstein Institute, now a consultant, chimed in at great length. Writing A Different Slant on the Global Planning Table --http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/a-different-slant-on-the-global-planning-table/ -- if you could get through the convoluted thicket of Carl's reasoning (I asked a friend whether he had read it and he responded: "No, I didn't read it because I never understood him live and in person."), I think it boiled down to the national system needs a strong planning function. As a former Chair of the CJF Planning Committee when Norb Fruehauf, Joan Strauss and a great group of pros led that effort, I couldn't agree more. But, Carl, let's be clear, the GPT is the planning wolf in sheep's clothing. It's not about planning in the pure sense that Sheingold envisions, it is, at the end of the day, JFNA leadership's grab of allocations control -- first of the federations' overseas allocations and then of their national agencies' allocations.

More to follow.

Rwexler

REALLY??

2011-12-09T05:30:00.000-06:00

Perhaps it's not surprising but after six years of neglect and abuse, leaders have come together to begin discussions of recreating the United Jewish Appeal, or so I am told. Why now...let me count the ways...

JFNA has seen a steady exodus from what was its FRD Department , now Philanthropic Resources or something even more obscure and obtuse. Perhaps the two holdover professionals can turn off the lights (or show Paul Kane how to do so). Starting with Vicki Agron, continuing with Gail Reese and David Saginaw and, now, Danyelle Neuman, another superstar...they and so many others...gone. But not just gone -- each of these superb professionals has found new horizons to conquer, bringing their expertise and passion to bear for other fund raising organizations -- oh, I forgot, JFNA is no longer a fund raising organization.

So if your federation wants counsel on its annual campaign, or on a capital campaign effort, or, for that matter, anything relating to financial resource development (other than planned giving where a skeleton staff still has the ability to assist [or, at least, convene meetings]). So a "for instance..." JFNA through Summer 2011, continued the Campaign Chairs and Directors Missions initiated by UJA, when I was Chair. (To be fair, we just broadened the Women's Campaign Chairs and Directors Missions initiated by the UJA National Women's Campaign.) It has been a great Mission, setting the pace for the upcoming Campaigns, with capacity fund raising and inspiration. It also brought the Campaign Directors together with the national Campaign/FRD staff. Now, there is but a skeleton of a national FRD professional staff. What does JFNA have to offer the federations' campaign chairs and local professionals?

There is a similar deficit on the federation planning side of JFNA. In the early and mid-90s, JFNA engaged with federations, hiring consultants, and producing a series of plans antithetical to the federation concept. In every Large and Large Intermediate community in which JFNA did a community strategic plan, the concept of federation as the central planning and central address was lost and those federations have struggled for greater traction, in some instances any traction ever since. The slogan "we're from JFNA and we're here to help you," is more warning sign than welcoming slogan.

How did the organization get so lost...for another day.

Rwexler

CREATING THE JFNA CULTURE

2011-12-06T05:30:00.000-06:00

From Day one of what is now JFNA, there has been the expressed desire to create a "new culture" -- one distinct from those of CJF and UJA. Well, friends, kal ha'kavod, the "JFNA culture" has emerged. Unfortunately, it is a culture of arrogance, a culture of immunity from any and all criticism, a culture of the thin skin. Worst of all, it is a culture free of accountability...and we, the donors and federations have only ourselves to blame.

Charles Bronfman and Jeffrey Solomon recently responded, in a special Wall Street Journal section on Philanthropy to the question: Should Philanthropies Operate Like Businesses? Their answer: ...to have a sustained and strategic impact, philanthropy must be conducted like business -- with discipline, strategy and a strong focus on outcomes. Organizations receiving your support should be as accountable to you as a company's board is to its shareholders...

This all seems so obvious. In your community and mine, we "focus on outcomes" and accountability is paramount. Yet, when it comes to our national organization, it is as if outcomes are irrelevant and there is no one...no one...demanding accountability. One would think that JFNA is nothing more than a "mom and pop store" -- a $30 million a year "mom and pop store."

How else does one explain that JFNA could convene a Tribefest, lose $253,000 (before overhead costs), not a question is asked publicly, there is no accounting, and a second Tribefest is placed on the Calendar with no budget? Or, where is the accounting for a $250,000 loss on the 2010 New Orleans GA? How are these debts to the organization being repaid?

More to the point, why are you silent? Where is the federations' demand for JFNA accountability? Perhaps one-on-one, if at all? Are we fearful of "offending" the powers that be, of making waves? By our silence we have encouraged more of the same and there is no one telling JFNA's lay and professional leaders that this behavior must stop.

I have to laugh each time I read the Draft Budget (that none of us are supposed to see) with its claims of monitoring results and accountability. These have becoming throwaway phrases without meaning -- like "robust debate" and "dynamic programs."

Friends, it is long past time for JFNA to be held to the same standard of accountability as are our federations. Or do we just not care?

Rwexler

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER?

2011-12-03T05:30:00.001-06:00

Two months after the Israeli Ministry of Absorption went viral with a set of ads that had an apparent dual purpose -- to warn ex-pat Israelis of the "dangers" of life in America and to insult American Jewry, our Jewish Federations of North America leaped into the fray. Apparently inspired by a report on the ads from liberal pundit Jeffrey Goldberg in his blog in The Atlantic, JFNA did, as is its wont, sent a strong letter to the Prime Minister.

The ads were pulled by the PM on December 2, no doubt an immediate response occasioned by the JFNA expression of outrage (in which it was separately joined by an equally angry ADL. Seeing as the ad campaign, for which Israel's Ambassador to the U.S. apologized, was in its third month, the question does arise: "JFNA what took you so long?" After all someone is viewing anything and anything that affects us, no matter how obscure, and reporting it in Jerry's Daily Media Guide...but not this? Huh?

Within two hours of the Prime Minister;s announcement of the decision to pull the ads JFNA's Chair and CEO sent out their message of thanks and accepted credit (with "other organizations") for the PM's actions. Jeffrey Goldberg received no credit. So, two months to even appear interested in the ads, two hours to take credit for them being taken "off the air." Two months...two hours. ..no shame.

And, in its letter to the PM, the Board Chair and CEO offered to consult on future marketing. As one of my friends wrote: "Just what the Israelis need, JFNA's expertise in marketing to Israelis." And another: "It's good to know they answer the questions they weren't asked; now if they would only answer the questions they're asked."

Finally, JTA reported that "...the feedback (on the ads) from Israelis who live in the United States was positive." What a country...what a couple of countries.

Rwexler

JUST ASKING?

2011-12-01T05:30:00.000-06:00

~ Just amazing...The JFNA Community Heroes thing with its own website and spokesperson -- one Andy Neusner -- is in full swing. Just ask Andy...

On November 21 Andy announced that the semi-finalists had been voted in -- unlike the NCAA (or any other event with "semi-finalists") in my experience, there are 20. And, looking at the bios of each, it seems that each "Career" or "Volunteer" "Hero" received the identical number of "votes." Yes, each nominee received 239,804 votes, if you believe any of this.

Then I looked at some of the nominees -- "semi-finalists." A very eclectic group to be sure. Some self-nominated, any number of Rabbis and a Rebbitzen, some dedicated to Jewish students on campus, one dedicated, apparently, to raising her family and seeking "justice" for her husband who was tried and convicted of financial fraud, bank fraud and money-laundering. He is appealing. Her interest: "social justice." Somehow...meets the criteria for a Community Hero. There are those working on critical health issues. Some excellent folk; some not so much. And, we're so proud.

If Heroes legally qualifies, as I think it does, as a Lottery, based on research and work we did for clients setting up similar contests in Illinois, Heroes as operated is arguably in violation of New York law. But, I sense no one cares. As usual.

Oh, and who is Andy? The Web Content Manager and Manager, Jewish Community Heroes, for JFNA. Great job, Andy!! Really.

~ Now let's turn to Jewish Women International. JWI has selected Kathy Manning as one of its 10 Jewish Women to Watch, announcing her selection in their magazine with an appropriately laudatory article last month. JWI is doing great work: "JWI is the leading Jewish organization empowering women and girls -- through economic literacy; community training; healthy relationship education and the proliferation of women's leadership." The organization is devoted to dynamic and robust initiatives to "...protect the fundamental rights of all girls and women to live in safe homes..." its programs to prevent abuse in the home and combat illiteracy appear to be exemplary. Kathy deserves this honor and it comes from a fine organization.

A question: should the Chair of a federation or of JFNA accept an award at a fund-raising event -- a luncheon or dinner -- during the federation annual campaign calendar and while serving in high office? For example, the event honoring Kathy on her selection will take place in Washington in December. Kathy has sent out personal invitations to a lengthy list of friends and acquaintances (I am not on it...surprise, surprise) many of whom will come to D.C. to honor her...and raise money...or attempt to. Thus: no matter how important the organization, should a federation or JFNA Chair accept an award at a fund raising event during the annual campaign cycle.

Now in Chicago and, perhaps, your federation as well, there's a strong communal tradition that dictates that a federation Chair not accept organizational honoraria during his/her terms. In addition, our officers are not to publicly support political candidates, etc. But, at JFNA, there are neither traditions nor rules.

As I wrote -- just asking.

Rwexler

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES?

2011-11-28T05:30:00.000-06:00

While the Blog was on hiatus, someone at JFNA thought it would be a great idea for the Board Chair to testify before a group of Democrats in Washington. (And, don't get me wrong, what we are examining here would be equally disappointing had the testimony been before a group of Republicans.) JFNA then published the testimony -- very well-prepared and thought through (and, I am certain, well-presented.) But. was this really a good idea?

No mention was made in any of JFNA's self-congratulatory bloviation on the Chair's presentation that a quid pro quo was asked of all of the invitees. Senators Carl Levin and Ben Cardin essentially stated, as reported in JTA but never making a special JFNA Leadership Briefing: we want public support from you for our positions and those of President Obama. Sometimes you have to sit back in wonder -- is it all about the public appearance with no anticipation of potential outcomes?

And, so it should have come as no surprise when, at the GA, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the highest ranking politico to make the trek to Denver, echoed the "ask" of Senators Levin and Cardin in her Plenary address.

I am reminded of the words of Maria Callas, as spoken by Tyne Daley in her brilliant performance in the restaging of Master Class, when criticizing one of her students: "I'm sorry to do this to you, but what's the point of going on with it if it's all wrong, eh?"

Rwexler

"J F'...IN A, WHAT THE HECK IS THAT?"

2011-11-26T05:30:00.000-06:00

When I was thinking about returning to the Blog, I thought of retitling this with a quote from a leader in one of the forty or so JFNA "partners" in Tribefest, who upon learning of his organization's new "partnership" asked the question as relevant today as it was a year ago: J f___'in A; what the hell is that? Here we are, 12 years into the merger and the question remains: what the hell are we? What is JFNA's purpose? What are its priorities? What is its mission?

If you sat with its leaders and asked them these questions, you would, no doubt, get back an amazing run-on sentence (and, as any reader knows, I am an expert in those) "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." In the run-up to the GPT vote at the GA, the Board Chair, in her opening salvo at the Board Meeting, "proved" that she knows our values by reciting so many of them "caring for our elderly, educating our children, et., etc." Of course, reciting them doesn't connect JFNA's activities to them, does it? We continuously receive rhetoric in lieu of purpose...and it shows.

No matter the hype and self-congratulatory hyperbole, the Denver GA was the least attended in decades. (As the 2010 GA lost over $250,000 and this one hardly drew flies, no doubt the same Co-Chairs who, for reasons unclear, were asked to chair both, will lead us to Baltimore as well.) The last GA held in Denver was so large, its Plenaries had to be held at the Convention Center; this year, in a Hotel Ballroom. The GPT, so "vital" to the communal future, attracted only 80 federation representatives to the Board/Assembly meeting that "unanimously, or nearly so" approved it. The 2012 Prime Minister's Mission, recruited 32 participants, mainly from Chicago, to Greece and even fewer onward to Israel. The Young Leadership Cabinets, but shadows of their former selves, raised $6,000 per Retreat participant, while its leaders are diverted to Tribefest 2 activities. And, on and on.

It's time to rekindle the passion that brought so many of prior generations into communal, national and international leadership. Convene the past national Chairs of JFNA, UJA and CJF in a serious effort to get input and, just maybe, some inspiration. (The last time this was done, face-to-face, was by Jim Tisch and Steve Hoffman eight years ago; it was a good, if feisty meeting.) Today's leaders must stop believing that they are omniscient, that the only good ideas come from them...and from them alone. Stop talking in jargon -- e.g., "we will have robust debate in a dynamic process" and actually have "robust debate" and "dynamic processes."

Rwexler

NEW ENERGY

2011-11-24T05:30:00.000-06:00

A recent note in Sports Illustrated, under the title Sign of the Apocalypse, read: In the hopes of bringing respectability back to his organization, embattled FIFA president Sepp Blatter has named 88-year-old former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger and 70-year-old Spanish tenor Placido Domingo to serve on a "council of wisdom."

Then, recently, a very respected national leader told me that I was too old for (apparently) any role in Jewish communal life.

And, then I thought about the recent kerfuffle arising out of JFNA's idiotic publication of a list of 43...43!!!...GA speakers, none of whom was a woman (even though the actual list of GA speakers includes almost a 50/50 split of women and men and JFNA has a commendable record of affirmative hiring of superb women professionals). Of course we know that JFNA can hardly express itself on any occasion -- except when it is making up numbers.

BUT, where were the aged speakers at the GA?
Where is the affirmative hiring of the elderly? Who speaks for the aging...

Hence....

A LEADERSHIP BRIEF

METHUSELAH JOINS SENIOR MANAGEMENT TEAM

JFNA is thrilled to announce that Methuselah has joined its Senior Management Team as Special Senior Advisor to the CEO on Everything.

Methuselah is 965 years old. "I am thrilled that I will have the benefit of Methuselah's incredible breadth of knowledge at this critical time," said Jerry Silverman, President and Chief Executive Officer, the Jewish Federations of North America. "Methuselah has known every mega-donor in the World and should be able to introduce them (at least those that are still with us) to JFNA and make them part of our national community," Silverman continued with enthusiasm.

Methuselah said, "This new opportunity will energize me in ways I hadn't thought possible. I already feel half my age, young again. My plans are to visit every federation to which my mule can carry me. (So maybe only the 75 New Jersey federations.) My contract is for five years and during that time I will offer my best advice, garnered from hundreds of years of experiences, to Jerry and the federations in my own tried and true, and sometimes crude, ways."

Methuselah continued: "This ish the best opportunity for JFNA whish, as you know, ishn't too engaged with the next generation." When asked whether this meant that Methuselah supports the #ish effort, he replied:"No, its jusht that I have lost all my teeth over 965 yearsh. I hope to have them fixed with all I am being paid plush health and dental insurance."

JFNA's Chair of the Board, stated: "While I don't know Methuselah personally, from everything I have heard, he is really quite old. I welcome him and his expertise to JFNA where Methuselah's hiring is further demonstration that JFNA may be many things, one thing we are not is ageist." The Chair of the Executive had nothing to say. ___________________________________________________________________

OK, Methusaleh has not been hired at JFNA. If he were available, however, would he be...

Rwexler

TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET

2011-11-22T05:30:00.000-06:00

Periodically we will devote some time to take a look at the totality of our system. you know, to check the temperature of the federations and JFNA (and others) and see how things are going...or not. I think the title of these Posts is appropriate to what is reported below:

~One CEO in a Large City allegedly parcels out his/her time in five minute increments -- in each of every minute of every hour of every day. Got a complex problem -- try to reserve two back-to-back segments. What's the saying: "If everything is a priority, then you have no priorities." And this federation is in the process of recreating itself -- but not as a federation as it once was, in fact, hardly bearing any resemblance to a federation at all.

~Another of our Large Cities refused to pay its full Dues (Actually more than one but I am writing of only the "one" JFNA leaders' "deal-makers" claim as a "victory") -- no hardship claim, just a sense that the Dues were too much, and they weren't going to pay. Just plain refused. So JFNA's Chair just cut a deal -- no rational basis -- with the federation in question, then bragged publicly -- "I saved the system" -- followed by the sound of the verbal back-slapping of the sycophants. "I saved the system" - is that what you call it? So if my federation, or yours, just doesn't want to pay full Dues, just give 25 Broadway a call -- the JFNA version of "too big to fail" could work for you, too.

~ Apparently there is no one editing the links appearing in the JFNA Daily

Media Report. See, for example, under Local Federation News late last month (10/27) an article on the candidate for a local Ohio School Board. I foolishly thought the article might reference a Cleveland Jewish leader. Looking for the Federation "connection?" Well. that candidate is a security guard at the Cleveland Jewish FederationChair. Wish him well...

~ A federation CEO clearly didn't like one (or more) of my posts and wrote to, among other things, criticize my poor writing (distinguish that from those who criticize me for writing). Told me he was an English major in College; copied my Federation CEO and...Jerry. Quite the grown-up. Oh, his letter was very well-written.

~ Sam Astrof has served our system as JFNA's CFO and then as COO/CFO so well for so many years. he is a good man, a superb professional and he grew to understand collective responsibility as well as anyone. He announced his retirement a short time ago. Sam and I had many disagreements but we both understood that they were l'shem ha'shamayim. In what I can only describe as an oversight of gross proportions, not one word of tribute to Sam's multiple contributions during his, I think it's been eight years, was offered by the Chairs or CEO at the GA. Sometimes there is negligence and sometimes there is...willful and wanton... And, friends, a nice good-by at a Budget Meeting wouldn't be enough.

Rwexler

WHERE IS THE APPARATUS OF ACCOUNTABILITY?

2011-11-18T05:30:00.000-06:00

Whether at a public charity, a federation or JFNA, there must be in place the structures and processes that assure that the responsibilities and obligations of lay and professional leadership are monitored and assured. At JFNA this "apparatus of accountability" has been placed in fewer and fewer hands and normal checks and balances have disappeared. Consider...

In place are the Board Chair, the Chair of the Executive (the position itself has proved to be about as valuable and necessary as an appendix), the Treasurer and the CEO. The Board Chair also serves as Chair of the Compensation Committee (on which I believe sit only the Chair of the Executive and Treasurer, reporting to no one -- the only way one can learn what the CEO has earned is by examining the JFNA 990, always 1-1/2 years after the fact) and as Chair of something called the Transactions Committee (to which can be delegated, well, anything). The Treasurer serves as Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee. The CEO, though hired by the corporation, and responsible to the Board, in practice reports to and is accountable to the Board Chair. (Thus, it is the Board Chair who led the Search Committee that chose Jerry and it is the Board Chair who selected the 24 JFNA leaders she sought out for an evaluation of Jerry after two years of his leadership. And it is the Board Chair, ahead of the input of the 24 she asked to provide it, who had concluded that "Jerry is great." Who's to argue that?)

I was involved in responding to a JFNA Draft of the now breached and disregarded JFNA/JAFI/Joint November 2010 Agreement on behalf of the Agency and Joint. With input from federation CEOs, the original Draft was the work product of only the Board Chair. It was she who negotiated the Draft for JFNA. I would assume it has been she who has dictated how the Agreement would be breached.

The GPT was driven to its unanimous approval by the Board Chair and CEO. A Drafting Committee, undisclosed to any other than the participants and consultant, was appointed by the Board Chair (perhaps with input from the CEO), its membership carefully culled to exclude representation from any federation which might input historic, collective values. When JFNA convened regional meetings to roll out the GPT "straw man" (I do not know what that means) plan, the consultant appeared with the CEO who may or may not have conveyed strong opposition to the Plan -- objections and constructive criticisms that were not included in the approved GPT Plan.

When there is no apparatus of accountability as is the case at JFNA, a greater burden falls on the JFNA Executive Committee and the Board of Directors -- there are no other checks and balances...none. Yet, neither JFNA governance body has demonstrated any real interest in acting as anything other than an echo chamber for the Board Chair and the CEO. In a public charity, in a federation, and at JFNA for sure, this is a dangerous practice.

An attitude has developed that can best be expressed as: "We elected these leaders and agreed to the engagement of the CEO, let's let them lead and leave them alone to do it. Unless they're stealing or engaged in unlawful practices, we owe it to them to support them without question." That not only distances the Board members from their responsibilities, it distances the organization from its members.

And no one cares.

Rwexler

HEROES AND HYPOCRISY

2011-11-15T05:30:00.003-06:00

JFNA's wholly unnecessary often silly now annual Community Heroes program has, or if JFNA had any institutional sense, proved to be an annual embarrassment. And, not just because the "winners" have so not represented the federated communities and not just because there has been ballot box stuffing. It's because Heroes has been (from the beginning) a "game" without rules.

This year, an activist who can best be described as emerging out of an organization whose stridency can be charitably described as anti-Israel pro-divestment, pro-sanction, pro-boycott was nominated as a "Community Hero.". Having no criteria for who might be a nominee, JFNA applied its unilateral judgement and removed the nominee from consideration. (Should there not have been some disqualifying criteria, set in advance? Duh.) Friends reminded me that in the first year of Heroes they had nominated me, that I was doing quite well in the voting as a matter of fact, when, presto-changeo, I was no longer on the ballot. So, at least two criteria seem to apply: if you are out of favor with JFNA, you are out; and if your organizational support comes from those who are out of step with the JFNA/system's message on Israel, you're out as well.

Let's carry this a little further. Peter Beinart was a/the featured speaker at last week's desultory General Assembly. Beinart, the estimable CUNY Associate Professor, who has begun a significant second career bashing American Jewish organizational leadership and the Israeli Government, has published, among other trash, The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment. Contrary to actual research findings, Beinart has concluded that Jewish young People have distanced themselves from "right wing, anti-liberal" Israel, yada yada yada. He embraces the message of Shulamit Aloni, Avrum Burg and others of that ilk. I would assume, given the actions taken to remove a woman organizational leader from Heroes consideration because of an alleged anti-Israel message; Beinart, were he nominated, would be removed as well. Or maybe not. Hypocrisy runs amok.

But...this hypocrisy didn't end with Beinart. Columnist Caroline Glick, a Jerusalem Post editor, with whom readers of these Posts know I often violently disagree, blogged after the GA Jewish American Community in Danger (November 11). She not only cited Beinart's GA appearance but that as well of "...the Boston Globe's resident anti-Israel columnist James Carroll" and she condemned the organization "...which presented several panels discussing whether anti-Zionists should be embraced by the community..." But, then she got it wrong when she wrote: "But who among the well-funded American Jewish leadership has the courage to tell these young people (who chose these speakers) that they are deranged?" It was not "young people" who chose these speakers -- it was the professional leaders of JFNA. Those who should know better...don't. And the lay leadership of JFNA and this GA -- busy thanking everyone for "the great GA."

I suggested in the midst of the first Heroes exercise that JFNA promulgate standards for the nominees. A silly suggestion when having no standards allows JFNA the power (dearly loved by those now in power) to remove candidates at will. Why give that up? I have a better suggestion, give up on this entire futile Heroes thing. And, given the speakers at this year's GA, shame on all of us for doing nothing.

Last week Peter Beinart headlined the JFNA General Assembly. His appearance was deemed so important it merited an interview on the GA Daily Report. And the annual Heroes fiasco continues. Please discuss and report on what our system has gained from this annual waste.

This is Emperor's New Clothes stuff. So terribly sad.

Rwexler

REFLECTIONS

2011-11-13T05:30:00.000-06:00

The press has provided all of us with some excellent analysis, unburdened by biases one way or the other, of the implications of the Global Planning Table. Articles in The Forward and JTA provided perspectives from the GA itself, The Jewish Week interviewed an ever-optimistic Jewish Agency Chair of the Executive, Natan Sharansky. And, in a brilliant commentary, Dan Brown, the founder of eJewishPhilanthropy, hit it out of the park. These articles and opinion pieces were factual and insightful -- we'll compare them to the hyperbole and outlandish self-serving comments of JFNA's leaders, astounding in themselves.

Certainly the JDC sees a short-term benefit -- the 75/25% "split" will go away. (To be followed almost immediately with the Joint becoming [along with the Agency] just another supplicant.) JAFI, in its comments, welcomed the "competition in the marketplace, joining the JDC in doing so. The reality is that short-term benefits will be offset by the confusion, competition and diffusion the GPT will inevitably, even immediately, sow. A division that will not just pit the Agency and Joint against each other but against other organizations and agencies -- all within your federation and mine. The discipline of a system committed to collective responsibility will not just be eroded, it will be destroyed.

In Nathan Guttman's excellent article in JTA -- Federations Drop Overseas Giving Formula -- one gets the impression that JFNA's leaders live in some alternate universe, clearly detached from reality. Thus, the Board Chair was quoted: One of the things we lost over the years is the understanding of what our partners do, how they use our dollars to make a real impact on the needs they deal with. Unbelievable. Here are the facts -- JFNA, unlike the predecessor organizations, failed and refused...that's right, refused...to advocate on behalf of either JAFI or the Joint at any time. Assuming that the Board Chair and CEO understand what the Jewish Agency and JDC do (and they should, for they dutifully attend almost if not every Board meeting of both organizations and, in the case of JAFI, sit on its Executive Committee), on the ground, in service of needs identified by the federations, it has been incumbent upon them to explain those needs to the JFNA constituency. They haven't. At times (for example, during the Wars in the North and South of Israel) JFNA's leaders demanded that neither the Jewish Agency nor Joint communicate their efforts even to their own leadership. And now, they wish to control them completely without even the courtesy of allowing them a seat at the table where decisions will be made.

Guttman pointed out that "...the JFNA plan...reflects a continuous drop in allocations by federations for casuses outside their immediate communities." And, it is so much worse than that. JFNA sat moot as federations reduced their core allocations to Israel and overseas needs by over $200 million -- on their watch. The JFNA CEO believes that this is a marketing issue ("you're just not getting your message across") -- isn't everything? But JFNA, charged with the responsibility of increasing resources to the Joint and JAFI by the Merger itself, stood silent, and failed to respond to the pleas of the partners and now, somehow, through the magic of the GPT suggest that all will be well. Again, I am reminded of the child who kills her parents and pleads for the mercy of the court because now she is an orphan.

In all of its written and oral presentations of the GPT, JFNA's leaders emphasized, without a single detail to support their conclusions, that the GPT will revive allocations and bring the federations' collective power to bear on the needs in Israel and overseas. They permitted no questioning of these conclusions. And there were no answers -- the federations, more or less unanimously, approved "a work in process" without detail other than a structure that makes the proposed Egyptian voting process seem simple and direct.

It was Dan Brown, in his The Jewish Federations' Big Gamble, who concluded that the GPT is, for the federations and JFNA, "...a big step backward." The federations, Dan wrote, are "...now saddled with a new level of bureaucracy." The author framed two key questions that neither JFNA nor, apparently, the federations paused to consider: Does JFNA really think the GPT will help grow donations (even slow a decline); and Does JFNA believe the next generation of donors will embrace this type of organizational structure? In fact, back in the Spring, as Jerry and JFNA's consultant trotted the GPT Draft across the country to Regional Meetings, these were among the questions asked and the criticisms leveled -- many by the very federations who a few months later, never having received an answer...none...just voted in favor of a Plan and structure which if changed at all from that which Jerry took notes on at those Regional meetings, changed, believe it or not, for the worse.

And a third question: How can JFNA, unable to date to execute the simplest of programs, be expected to manage and control a process so complicated as to be inexplicable? That's rhetorical, of course.

Brown concluded that "...the Global Planning Table is not the solution, but rather a ticking time bomb that will negatively effect Jewish giving going forward." And, friends, it's so much worse than even that.

Rwexler

ECHOES OF THE SORRY PAST

2011-11-10T05:30:00.002-06:00

As I listened to the GPT presentation to the JFNA Board and Delegate Assembly to the 80 federations present (of 157), my mind wandered back to one of those old black and white films -- one of those Westerns where Gabby Hayes was peddling sarsaparilla to the unsuspecting settlers as a cure-all for everything that ailed them.

When JFNA last confronted the ONAD mess, a group of CEOs had to jump into the fray to literally "save ONAD from itself." ONAD, now dead and buried but soon to be resurrected as "the GPT," was the Overseas Needs and Distribution Committee, which, in its five years of existence contributed nothing to the Overseas Allocations and Distribution process other than divisive debate and the undermining of the system's trust in its overseas and historic partners -- through no fault of theirs.

As disinterested as so many are in the ONAD history, without understanding that history and the outcomes -- all bad -- one can't understand the potential that the GPT has for the deconstruction of our system. ONAD lasted for a little over five years. It began well-planned with much thought and hope as a planning and evaluative tool with the Jewish Agency and the Joint leaders "at the table." During the five years of its operation, the JDC and JAFI, by conservative estimates, invested well over $7 million responding to constant questions, asked and reasked, by consultants hired by JFNA (UJC at the time) and JFNA's professional staff -- to no apparent affect. Over those years, the core allocations to JAFI and the Joint nose-dived. There was a side benefit to ONAD -- many federations that previously lacked them, created Israel and Overseas Committees...an unintended positive consequence. And nothing more.

At the end of the first year of ONAD, its incomparable Chair, New York's Alan Jaffe, speaking for the Committee, concluded that at a time of declining core allocations ONAD would not recommend changes in how funds would be allocated between JAFI and JDC. That was the constant recommendation from a succession of Chairs -- Bobby Goldberg and Sonny Plant, z'l, each a master of the art of compromise, of bringing people of polar views together. In its last year, a far more ambitious Chair attempted unilaterally to override the compromise reached at the ONAD table and approved there by the participating federations. Disaster was averted only by the intervention of the "three wise men."

The first speech of Jerry Silverman's predecessor began with a statement that ONAD was over and that "...it's time to trust the Jewish Agency and Joint once again." Unfortunately, these were just words...only words. Think of it, over 50 federations were directly represented on the ONAD Committee during its terms. Generally speaking, the representatives from the federations themselves -- mandated to be sitting or incoming Chairs -- and those representing their City-size groupings, were men and women of good will. Yet, only one of these fifty federations has increased its core allocations -- the rest have cut those allocations, some by 30% of what they were and more.

And, now, JFNAs leaders will replicate the sorry process that was. If you ask them, as I have asked some of them, their uniform answer is: "Oh, this won't be ONAD." Ask them how it will be different and get back a glazed look in the eyes, anger that you asked the question, and no answer. They aren't interested in the mistakes of the past -- only in repeating them at far greater cost.

And what about those wise men -- those federation executives who rescued ONAD from itself in 2005? Hmmmm.

Rwexler

NOT WITH A BANG BUT A WHIMPER

2011-11-09T08:18:00.000-06:00

The JFNA Board and Delegate Assembly closed the GA with an almost unanimous, if not unanimous, approval of the Global Planning Table "structure" yesterday evening. Even though only 80 federations were present when that meeting began, it's safe to say that had all 157 been there, the results would surely have been the same.

The discussion began with a passionate presentation by the Board Chair on the value the GPT would have, hearkening back to conclusions that included "...the old ways aren't working" and in what proved to be an entirely unnecessary confabulation leading to "...the GPT will move our system forward" and a recitation of the "historic values" to which JFNA remains committed.

Our leaders were careful: they separated any discussion of or vote on the Second Membership Criterion, leaving that dog on the table for consideration at the January 2012 Owners Retreat.

The newly engaged Senior Vice-President for the GPT and other things was left to describe the structure, and in her articulate remarks she observed that "times have changed" as JFNA "writes a new chapter in Jewish history" with language straight out of the GPT Plan. I began to envision, for those who remember, Gabby Hayes in an old black and white Western selling "sarsaparilla" to cure all that ails you.

Yes, "times they are a'changin"...indeed. Kal ha'kavod. Onward.

Rwexler

AND THEN, THE END

2011-11-09T05:30:00.000-06:00

As has been reported elsewhere as well as on these pages, in November 2010 JFNA, the Jewish Agency and the Joint entered into a tri-partite agreement that offered the promise of JAFI/JDC engagement with the federations at a Global Planning Table at which they would be full participants, even with no vote, a meaningful Second Membership criterion that would commit all all federations to a meaningful core allocation to the Jewish Agency and Joint, and the establishment of a Committee of the parties "...to consider, discuss and establish" if all agreed "guidelines for" the partners FRD, co-branding and marketing. (The "Agreement.")

Surely, I and others have written "volumes" on the GPT, so filled with jargon, complexity and cliche, that promises nothing less or more than the end of our historic system. While the Joint will see short-term benefits from the termination of its historic "split" agreements with the Jewish Agency, sh ort - and long-term, both organizations' core allocations, so vital to their work, will be the bank from which JFNA will draw down funds at its whim to fund programs more momentarily attractive and "impactful," as JFNA shall determine. This will inevitably and inexorably force the Jewish Agency and Joint into direct fund-raising, competing with the annual campaigns of all federations but JAFI's and the Joint's most significant funders. Our system will end with JFNA performing the last rites.

As to the Second Membership Criterion -- it is a meaningless exercise. Originally called for, under the JFNA/JA/Joint Agreement of less than one year ago, to increase core allocations to both organizations. It is now nothing more than an "enabler" -- enabling federations that allocate nothing to the core of either historic partner to participate side-by-side with those who allocate significant funds to the core budgets of both historic partners. A ridiculous by-product of JFNA standing for absolutely nothing.

But, none of the breaches of the Agreement has dissuaded JFNA from attempting to impose a draconian set of "fund-raising guidelines" on JAFI and JDC that, if accepted, would have made their fund-raising impossible -- just these two "beloved, historic partners," not Birthright, not the ENP, not multiple Israeli beneficiaries. At a meeting convened by JFNA with lay leaders from the historic partners present along with, as I recall, at least two Large City CEOs, JFNA professionals tried to unilaterally impose these "Guidelines." They failed. So, as is their wont (remember, the GPT arose out of a phony "consensus" at a 2009 Federation Retreat), having failed at the meeting, JFNA tried to impose its will by drafting Minutes totally inconsistent with the meeting's lack of outcomes. Both Joint and Agency representatives who attended the meeting, rejected these so-called "Minutes." Since that time there has been at least one inconclusive teleconference. As to the obligation accepted by JFNA, after its self-imposed silence, to engage in advocacy for and with JAFI/JDC, the silence is deafening.

And, now, the Agreement that offered the possibility of Guidelines having been breached by JFNA as to each and every specific, and the GPT now passed assuring that at the and of 2012, core allocations to the historic partners will no longer be a priority of our system, there is no Agreement on which any of the parties might rely. Thus, the law of unintended consequences will assure that the Jewish Agency and Joint have no choice but to compete not only with each other for federation Israel and overseas funds, but to compete with the national organization their votes enabled. Those federations who supported this and JFNA which initiated this will be the ones who will sadly pay the price.

This is the saddest of a succession of sad days.

Rwexler

FESTIVUS 2 -- THE SEQUEL

2011-11-08T05:30:00.000-06:00

As any reader of these Posts is aware, I found the concept, the planning and the execution of Tribefest to have been without merit, or worse. So it is only appropriate that JFNA would be embarked already on Tribefest 2; this time in advance of the GA so that it can be sufficiently and endlessly publicized, I would guess, in the halls and meeting rooms in Denver.

I assume that those planning Festivus 2 believe that the inaugural Festivus was a huge success. One has to ask "why?" The thing lost over 1/4 million dollars -- $253,000 -- not including staff overhead and travel. In a post Festivus 1 participants survey, I am told (this was never revealed in all of the self-congratulatory culling of that survey) that 75% of the registrants asserted that they would not have attended without a subsidy. (If this is incorrect, all one of the JFNA Festivus enthusiast need do is send us the full survey and responses.) If all those who participated in Tribefest 1 attend Festivus 2, how will our system have benefitted? How did the federation system benefit from Tribefest 1? We know almost how much we lost.

Has anyone asked the professionals driving this effort (beyond the simple "Why???") how this iteration of Festivus 2 will be any different than its predecessor? We know, for example, that lacking an answer to question of how the $253,000 in losses from Tribefest 2011 will be repaid, JFNA's leaders sought a $100,000 grant for Festivus 2 from the JFNA Endowment. The Endowment Committee members, inclined to support the request, had the chutzpah to require, as a condition precedent to formal approval, some...any...description of how that $100,000 might be used. The nerve of that Committee.

Will someone in charge of this thing (assuming someone is in charge) explain the anticipated outcomes, the measures of success of Tribefest 1 and what more might be anticipated from Tribefest 2? I know it is a lot to ask but one can see, plain as day, another $250,000 in losses, fewer participant subsidies...and a helluva great time had by all.

JFNA has just announced Registration NOW OPEN! Next March -- to be preceded by something called the Leadership Development Institute. Think of the synergies!! Festivus Registration Fee -- $450 (reduced to $49 if you register NOW); suites available for $109. WOW!! Outcomes -- no doubt "priceless." And no doubt a loss leader. And no doubt staff will be directed to spend 100's maybe 1000's of hours on this thing, once again. Never look back. We just repeat the mistakes of the past, don't we??

Two words come to mind to describe JFNA and Tribefest 2 -- "hope" and "prayer" as in JFNA has nothing but a hope and a prayer for Festivus 2's success.

Rwexler

NOT ENOUGH

2011-11-07T09:30:00.000-06:00

It's very clear today that there are the "voices in the wilderness" who have followed this Blog and the daily deluge of Briefings, op-eds and e-mails on the subject of the Global Planning Table, who know that a variety of commentators who have examined the GPT have found it far from wanting...have found it to be antithetical to its own purposes.

An anonymous young professional writing under the pseudonym ploni almoni has directly urged the federation leadership gathered in Denver to Vote No on the GPT which this John Doe concludes "...is the beginning of the end of Jewish Communal Collective Action," citing numerous reasons why in three cries of pain to the system. (This Anonymous professionals opinions so closely reflect my own that anonymous Commentators to this Blog have asked me if I and that writer are one.)

Then there was the Board Chair's response, without recognizing the critics of course, to we nay-sayers in a November 5 op-ed in The Jerusalem Post -- "Growing the Value of Jewish Federations' global giving." Therein, Kathy Manning essentially writes off the great collective successes of our federations in partnership with JAFI and JDC as the past, and points to GPT as "the forward-thinking process...a structure and process to confront new challenges, creatively allocate our collective resources, and more strageically support one another to build community at home and around the world." There was more, more of the same -- broad pronouncements that, upon any fair analysis, are unmatched by JFNA's lay or professional capacity.

This op-ed drove one commentator, Jay Michaelson (whose most recent book was God vs. Gay? The Religious Case for Equality), to write in The Jerusalem Post concluding that the Global Planning Table "...is so out of step with contemporary sensibilities among non-professional Jews that it seems not just like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, but steering the ship more closely toward the iceberg." Yet Michaelson's op-ed uses the GPT to exemplify the failures of the federation world -- sadly the GPT gives critics like Michaelson that chance.

In a rational organization, the critics, who include so many federation CEOs who, on this subject, are like Bontche the Silent, writing me in total confidence, telling me that I and others who have spoken out our opposition to the GPT, are right but "what can I, one person, do?" And, my response to them: "Speak out, vote to table this ill-thought out scheme and let's see if we can't do better." Won't happen is my guess.

Rwexler

FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT -- JFNA AND A SECOND MEMBERSHIP CRITERION

2011-11-05T05:30:00.000-05:00

As part of its inducement to the Jewish Agency and the JDC to enter into an Agreement with JFNA in November 2010, the latter promised to require that federations, to be eligible for participation at the "Global Planning Table," "...increase allocations to support the important work of JAFI and JDC" by establishing "...a communal norm for the percentage of annual campaign dollars that are to be allocated for overseas needs." Thus did JFNA promise to establish a meaningful floor for core allocations to JAFI/JDC. Instead, what has emerged as a "Second Membership Criterion" offers nothing to JAFI/JDC and, as in the instance of the GPT itself, JFNA stands in breach of its inducement to the Joint and Agency to enter into the November 2010 Agreement. I think lawyers call this fraudulent inducement.

Here is the 2nd Criterion as proposed -- "In the initial phase of implementation of the second criterion for membership in JFNA (2012 campaign allocations) all allocations for Israel and overseas programming will be counted toward the 10% minimum membership requirement. This includes both undesignated funds to JAFI and JDC and directed funding and is inclusive of all allocations outside of JAFI and JDC for Israel and overseas." (emphasis added)

In other words, if my community allocates nothing to the Agency or Joint, but 10% to, e.g., Hadassah Hospital, I am welcomed to the Global Planning Table with the same voice and vote as a community that allocates 30% of its annual campaign to JAFI/JDC.

Beginning with 2014 allocations, JAFI/JDC are not mentioned -- you just have to allocate 20% of your annual campaign as the GPT may determine. If JFNA aimed any lower in this "process," its institutional head would hit the floor.

Now, some have told me that it in today's environment it is futile to even argue the principle of collective responsibility and our historic partnership any more -- that's for the "dinosaurs" and "that train has left the station." Certainly these leaders know better than I -- but they also know that the GPT Plan and the Second Membership Criterion make a mockery of collective responsibility, a mockery of the concept and construct of partnership and these documents anticipate that the federations and JFNA have become nothing more than a confederation of hypocrites. For these documents speak to "collective responsibility" and support for JAFI and the Joint time and time again, but only in the Orwellian sense because what they mean is what the JFNA leaders have demonstrated for at east the past six years -- no support, not for JAFI, not for the JDC and not for the collective.

What JFNA proposes would upon its adoption turn the entire concept of collective responsibility on its head. It offers nothing to either the Jewish Agency or Joint, and, when coupled with the GPT, less than nothing. It appeals to the least of us rather than creating an aspiration to join the best of us. It opens up "participation" in JFNA and at the GPT essentially to any federation that allocates anything to anything in Israel or overseas. Your federation designates 10% of its annual campaign to, let's say, Haifa University -- you're in; to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs -- you're in; to the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress -- come on aboard. And, I am told "..this is the best they/we could do."

Then, without notice, JFNA's leaders take the SecondMembership Criterion off the agenda of the Board/Delegare Assembly meeting at the GA pushing that vote to the Owners Retreat in January. Why? No quorum for an Assembly vote? Pushback from federations that resist even a "10% of anything/nothing" Criterion? I'd love to suggest that there was pushback from the federations that actually care about and understand collective responsibility....but I dare not.

These "plans," read together or separately, are the dying declarations of a system that has lost its way. Sadly, ours is a system today that responds positively to the least among us.

Rwexler

FOOLS' GOLD

2011-11-03T05:30:00.000-05:00

The proposed Global Planning Table, now coupled with a meaningless even destructive "Second Membership Criterion," is Fools' Gold, a cryogenic chamber in which the hopes of the federations for something/anything from JFNA will be frozen in time until the federations come to their senses. By then, if then, so much will be lost...

The "GPT Plan" as drafted and revised presents such a convoluted piece of gibberish, it's not fit to wrap fish in. Let's, for a moment, revisit some recent history. The merger that created what is now JFNA was induced in part by express representations to the UIA (for the Jewish Agency) and the JDC, both of which would have to give up their ownership of the United Jewish Appeal, that one express purpose of the merger was to create greater financial resources for the overseas partners -- JAFI and the Joint. Over the next 12 years, JFNA not only failed to advocate for increased resources for the partners with the federations, it and its leaders sat passively over the last 6 years as allocations to the core budgets of the two partners dropped by over $200 million.

Twice over the past three years, the Jewish Agency and JDC reached agreement as to how to divide federation core allocations -- the first agreement rejected by the actions of a single federation which determined that the term of the JAFI/JDC agreement was "too long" (five years!!); the second rejected unilaterally and with out discussion by JFNA. These "rejections" should have been signal enough to the partners that they weren't.

Nonetheless, hopeful that they would be treated as true partners in the future if not today, the Jewish Agency and JDC entered into an Agreement with JFNA in November 2010, that assured them full participation in a Global Planning Table, a meaningful Second Membership Criterion for federation eligibility, and a plan mutually acceptable for joint marketing and FRD.

In the midst of this sordid history, at the very end of a desultory JFNA Owners' Retreat in February 2009, there was a discussion of what a Global Planning Table (or some such) might mean for JFNA. Few federations were present throughout the Retreat but almost none remained for the "discussion" of a global planning function, but JFNA's leaders, then and now, profess that a consensus emerged to develop and implement just such a device -- the purposes of which were not clear. Over the next months, JFNA's leaders expanded on that "consensus" redefining it as a mandate. Over the months, JFNA hired a consultant, created another one of its "secret Committees" (those federations who had no representative on the "Framing Committee" were unaware of its existence) and emerged this past Spring with a consultant's version of "GPT Straw Man" presentation that was rolled out in a series of Regional meetings to almost unanimous derision -- even JFNA's rubber stamp Executive Committee expressed strong opposition.

Undeterred, JFNA not only budgeted an additional $1.2 million for the GPT prior to its approval, it hired a senior professional in JFNA Washington to lead an effort that had not been approved. Then, over the past weeks, a revised Draft of the "GPT Plan" emerged -- Transforming the Future of Collective Action: The Global Planning Table. I would urge you to read this convoluted "Plan" for yourselves. After reading and rereading it myself, I can only conclude, as John McEnroe did after a horrible line call at Wimbledon years ago: "You cannot be serious." It was H. L. Mencken who must have anticipated this "Plan" when he wrote of another: "[I]t has the great virtue of being totally unintelligible."

A few things emerge in the GPT Plan that are clear:

     ~ No one at JFNA really has a clue what the concepts of collective responsibility or "partner" really means;

     ~ The Agency and Joint are partners in name only with lip service given to the entire concept of partnership;

     ~ To gain acceptance of the "GPT Plan," JFNA is perfectly willing to unilaterally breach its Agreement with JAFI/JDC. While that Agreement provided that "JAFI and JDC will be full, non-voting members of the GPT...," the Plan offers far less.

     ~ "Core funding" is an alien concept to the authors of the "Plan."

     ~ The "Plan" incorporates New York UJA-Federation's "Commission" approach to planning and allocations with no apparent analysis of either the costs of "importing" such a system into JFNA or of JFNA's ability to implement it. JFNA clearly lacks the professional competency of New York and already suffers the bureaucratic bloat that this "GPT Plan" promises to build upon.

     ~ No one involved in the JFNA construction of the "GPT Plan" experienced the disaster that ONAD proved to be over its five years of failures. While JFNA's leaders may hope and pray that the Global Planning Table will prove successful as ONAD was not, to one who was deeply involved in the ONAD fiasco it is clear that the GPT as "planned" will prove even worse. No attempt has been made by JFNA's leaders to even study the errors of ONAD, the GPT Plan only "promises" to compound them from day one.

   ~ With all the lip service to the "historic partners" the Jewish Agency and the Joint, at the end of Calendar Year 2012, it is JFNA's express intent to: control all federation Israel and overseas core allocations (such as they may be by 12/12) and determine their application notwithstanding the intent or direction of any single federation from largest to smallest; notwithstanding the intent or plans of the JDC Board for those funds, substitute its determination for the Joint's, ignoring the the reality that JDC is an independent American entity ; and notwithstanding the reality that neither JFNA nor the federations "own" the Jewish Agency -- we, the federations, are but minority co-owners with the Keren Ha'Yesod countries, the World Zionist Organization (more about that in future weeks) and, yes, the Government of Israel, JAFI's largest partner, and, maybe, the Holy Land Fellowship of Christians and Jews, whose core allocations to the Jewish Agency already exceed those of Keren Ha'Yesod and will, if trends continue, soon exceed those of the federations, direct the application of core funds to the Agency; and relegate its overseas "partners" to beneficiary status.

     ~ Assume, for purposes of a discussion among us, that those major federations which have committed to the Jewish Agency and/or the Joint that their core allocations will be "protected" in their communal decisions, follow through on these commitments; and assume further that those federations which currently designate all or most of their Israel and overseas allocations wish to continue to do so, the funds available to the GPT for its purposes will be far more restricted and ineffectual in dictating a "new collective" than its draftspersons expect. But...they just didn't think about that, did they?

     ~ JFNA, sensing that the definitions in the half-baked Plan are inadequate to their intent, contemplate that the "Partnership Committee"(on which neither JAFI nor the Joint will sit) will redefine the system's responsibilities to the system's "Historic Partners" (the Agency and Joint) by creating a set of "selection criteria" that might...or might not...at the worst exclude them and, at "best," convert cherished partners into grantees. What we have, my friends, is a bad Plan, poorly drafted, that will wreak havoc...and which will be approved next week at the General Assembly.

   ~ To illustrate the willingness of JFNA to distort reality in pursuit of the approval of the GPT Plan, consider this: at a meeting a few weeks ago, JFNA leaders almost broke their arms patting themselves on their own backs (that contortion is known in federation circles as "doing the JFNA") on the success of the Select Core Priorities program as a forerunner of the GPT. Here's what JFNA calls a "success:" 10 of 157 federations chose to participate (In a declining allocations environment 147 federations said: "No.")   -- that's 6%. These 10 put a total of $2 million into the Core Priorities. That's about 2% of total allocations to JAFI/JDC. And, yet, those at JFNA, who were last heard desperately calling federation staffs around the country, begging them to participate, now termed this not just "victory" but an indicator of the future success of the GPT. And, at this same meeting, the usual lay suspects offered their congratulations. Orwell would have been so proud.

Last Friday JFNA issued one of those Leadership Briefings that revealed more by what it did not say than what it did about the Global Planning Table -- no reference to the creation of additional resources; no explanation of the costs that will be incurred in its creation; and most revealing the only mention of JAFI/JDC is their inclusion as one of apparently many "global partners" who will need to have JFNA "coordinate" their "fundraising, marketing and communications."

No one would disagree that the federations' collective commitment to Israel and overseas needs has been neutered. An argument can certainly be made that the merger mandated that the national system ab initio was obligated to be at the forefront of advocacy for those needs and that JFNA, from Day One of its existence, has remained silent (but for sporadic outbursts). Now, JFNA states that through a GPT that it will control, all will be well. If you believe that, I have a Bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. This so-called "Plan" cries out "trust me" and "run for your lives" at one and the same time.

It is clear to this observer that the market reflected in federation allocations decisions was and is perfectly capable of determining how and where collective allocations should be directed. The Jewish Agency and Joint are fully capable of competing in and for that market without JFNA's attempt to control and dictate that for which it has no core competency. It does not take any particular prescience to predict that the GPT will be the table at which the federation system died. To date, I can think of no new initiative of JFNA that has been executed to the standard of excellence called for by the arrogation to the GPT of the allocations function heretofore executed by the federations, JDC and JAFI (and UIA).

But, JFNA drives this bus, with the acquiescence of federations who know better, toward the precipice. The JFNA Executive Committee, which had implicitly rejected an earlier iteration of the "GPT Plan," without objection, approved it two weeks ago. Everyone involved in this coming debacle, one that will cost everyone involved dearly, should know better -- and many of them do. And those that do will again have to clean up the mess that this Fools' Gold will surely leave behind.

Rwexler

NEXT: THE SECOND MEMBERSHIP CRITERION -- THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR

WHY NOW?

2011-11-01T05:30:00.000-05:00

Yes, the Blog has been down for four months. Life has been peaceful (for some). So, the logical question, one I have asked myself quite often, is why bring it back? There are multiple answers, all of which flow from my June 30 Post, the one in which I declared "-30-" Therein I indicated that if our federations failed to take ownership of JFNA and if JFNA continued down the path it was clearly and aimlessly heading and if in personam attacks on your Blogger continued, I reserved the right to return. And, because bad times have never seemed so bad, I am back.

I am committed to making the Blog a kinder and gentler place, accused as I have been in the past as engaging in the kind of personal attacks that those I have been writing about do toward me...and they have continued. I have explained that when leaders -- lay and pro -- confuse the organization's purposes with their own, as they continue to, their conclusions will continue to be that any criticism of organizational policies or programs or lack of direction or wrong direction are personal attacks. There are those who believe that the Blog was nothing more than a series of personal attacks on JFNA's leaders. I would ask them, knowing that they won't, to reread the 660 Posts that preceded this one. Just know that I have too much respect for those who assume leadership roles in our communities to do so. At Kathy Manning's specific request (even as she assured me that she never reads the them unless they are sent to her), I have reread those Posts and admit that I have too often failed my own standard. I will try not to do so in the future -- but (and it's a very big BUT) when leaders confuse criticism of programs and lack of a concept of institutional purpose with personal criticism, the problem isn't mine. I'll just have to live with that reality.

As so many of you have noted, I have been gone from these pages for four months...four months during which, unfortunately, JFNA has continued to engage in the humorous and the destructive while, all around it, federations are in retreat from the values and principles that once bound them together, with JFNA ...oblivious. The silence from the federation owners has been, is and, apparently, will remain...deafening. In the Posts ahead I will be looking back...and peeking into the future with you as what was such a beautiful system continues down the path of self-destruction.

Sure, I continue to be baffled by JFNA's lack of purpose, the annual on-going waste of a large percentage of $30.3 million of our precious resources, but, all the more, I am brought back to this Blog by the federations themselves apparent lack of will and growing lack of purpose. I return after these four months of silence as confused and frustrated as never before.

In the coming days and weeks I will be writing about the folly of the JFNA Global Planning Table -- which is nothing if not a written expression of the Orwellian fantasy world in which JFNA operates -- you know, black is white, dark is light; a meaningless and worse Second Membership Criterion; "deals" on Dues; the manner in which JFNA operates what has become the annual Community Heroes thing; and, of course, Tribefest 2. I will be looking at what some of our federations around the country have been doing, promoting or not doing. And I will be musing about the constant self-promotion, the self-congratulations that JFNA offers itself in such a variety of ways and about all manner of things -- its "brand," its missions but not its Mission, its lay and professional leaders and on and on.

Observing the lack of institutional purpose after 11 years just so saddens me. (You think that anyone at JFNA can articulate its purpose in a single sentence in plain English?) But, worse, over the last four months of my silence, I have watched as even those federations whose leaders truly care about our system, have handed JFNA's leaders a whole bunch of matches and a huge can of lighter fluid. And more and more, they are willing to just stand back and just admire the fire.

Then, last week came what has become and remains the kind of pettiness I had come to experience first-hand but which I had hoped was past. I had been asked to serve on a Search Committee for a successor to Yitzchak Shavit, z'l. I don't know who picked me but there was some rationale for it -- I had worked with Itzik in his roles for UIA, IEF, UJA and JFNA for over 25 years. When I inquired last week about when the Committee would be meeting, I was told that I had been summarily deleted from the Committee by "someone," unnamed, at JFNA. They know who they are...and so do I. And, so it goes.

Yes, I know. I am engaged in an act of both principle and futility.

So be it.

Rwexler

WATCH THIS SPACE...

2011-10-25T14:47:00.000-05:00

Yes, the Blog returns. I'm back and ready. Four months is a long time in the life of an organization, in the life cycle of the federations. Four months filled with more of the same.

We will Post on November 1. See you then.

-30-

2011-06-30T05:51:00.018-05:00

One of my great friends, a professional leader in so many areas of Jewish communal life offered me consolation with the following memory. One of his favorite Broadway musicals was 1776. In that smash hit, John Adams sings a melancholy ballad that concludes: Is anyone there? Does anyone care? Great, great questions.

Today, with this final Post, I place UJThee and me... on hiatus. Hopefully, forever. Those in our system who have been my mentors and partners have convinced me that which I should have realized long ago -- they can effect change but I can't; this Blog can shine a light on the need for change but can't cause change to occur. I am clearly a slow learner.

When I was so privileged to receive the JDC Ma'Asim Tovim Award in December 1998, the base of the beautiful Shofar bore this message: For Leading Our National System Into a New Era. This Blog has been a personal expression of pain as to where the "new era" we had dreamed of and worked so hard to create and implement has taken us.... literally nowhere. This Post places this Blog on hiatus with the hope that federation leaders, JFNA's owners, will begin to take their responsibilities of ownership seriously. And if the past is prologue as it always has been, as any reader of this Blog knows, this leadership will face which path to choose and will once again choose the wrong one.

On two previous occasions -- in February 2008 and in September 2010 -- I placed the Blog on hiatus; in 2008 in response to an initiative from leaders of my federation which would have put a stop to both the Blog and to the personal fatwa the JFNA leaders had declared on me based upon their own constant misrepresentations of fact (the fatwa continues -- see below); and last year in the hopes that a new lay and professional leadership team at JFNA would bring a new focus on matters relevant to the federation agenda, rather than on the personal agendas of leadership.

Sadly, in 2008 JFNA's leaders could not restrain themselves, they continued in personal, petty attacks in darkened hallways and e-mails; they even threatened the very existence of organizations I had led. And, throughout, they pursued their personal agendas as if they were the organizations, and in fact, with federations' abject silence, they became convinced that they were right -- after all, to use their phrase: "We are JFNA."

Then, while claiming that they never read the Blog, the vendettas and vitriolic attacks continued since 2010 and the "new" leadership could not find its way...it still cannot and, apparently, won't. The allegations by the Board Chair that this writer has "no integrity" and is "a liar," lacking any basis in fact are even more scurrilous given that Manning knows there is no basis in fact -- to acknowledge even the possibilty that may be wrong would destroy their narrative. Each allegation has been directly rebutted without response from JFNA's leaders. The suggestion that one who has chaired his federation, our CRC, the NCSJ, Operation Exodus, served as UJA National Campaign Chair in the days of a national campaign, led our system into the merger that created JFNA, and chaired UIA has "no integrity" evidences the lengths this leadership goes, unfettered in its attempts to discredit. They have sent a clear message: "Don't ever criticize us or this will happen to you." One can only be saddened for them.

The pettiness, vendettas and JFNA's slanders aside, from the beginning this Blog, at its heart, has been about integrity, truth-telling and transparency. It has also been about the failure of JFNA leaders to demonstrate any real commitments to true transparency (characterized time and again, by Minutes of meetings bearing no relationship to what actually took place), to the federations' core values and timeless principles or to the necessity of engagement through real and meaningful process, and it has been about trust. (For an incisive examination of our institutions' need to develop and build trust, see Dan Brown's Times Have Changed; the Value of Trust in ejewish philanthropy, June 16, 2011.)

As well, mine has been a very personal attempt to urge the federations and you, their leaders, to assert, to demand, as the owners of JFNA, just such commitments. There has been almost unanimity among the federation leaders with whom I have met or from whom I have heard, whether they supported this Blog or hated it, directly and unequivocally that JFNA is in disarray and out of touch in meaningful ways. And, yet, JFNA's leaders apparently hear only that all is well.

It has saddened me that, for years before this Blog, my private correspondence to JFNA's leaders were either ignored or treated as "destructive criticism" or, perhaps, "lies." And while, in meetings and phone calls, Jerry Silverman has encouraged me to offer, privately, what he termed "constructive criticism," I quickly learned (as I probably already knew) that "constructive criticism" was such a subjective term that any suggestions I made were viewed with a jaundiced eye as "not constructive." When I would end a letter by stating "[L]et me know how I may help," I was accused of disingenuity. (I already knew that these "leaders" had determined that I was "not JFNA" even if everyone who knows me well, knows full well that "I am very JFNA.") To the Board Chair, there could be no criticism at all that would ever be considered "constructive." And, so, the Blog continued.

To some, the 660 Posts I have written have been but examples of witless bloviation, a three times per week exercise in narcissism and la-shon ha'ra. Certainly there is some substance to those opinions, even though of 660 Posts, the veracity of only one has ever been questioned -- and then the question was raised by one who "...never ever reads the thing."

Many have argued, not with the substance of this Blog but, instead, with the fact that the Blog exists at all -- hanging our system's dirty laundry outside where everyone can see it and offering to pull back the ever-closed curtain are considered by some an act of betrayal of the system that they know that I love. And there are those, as well, who believe that our when our system elects leaders, their every action by that very election becomes cloaked in an absolute immunity to criticism -- public or private. (Something that certainly these JFNA leaders believe absolutely.) Yet, over my history of communal involvement I know of no leader other than these who has not heard criticism, absorbed it and learned from it.

But the real focus and frustration of the Blog has been with those in Federation leadership who have allowed JFNA to wander aimlessly while wasting so much of the $600,000,000 (+/-) in Dues paid. For the lay and professional leaders of JFNA didn't create this environment of federation passivity, they have merely exploited it. That has to stop!!

And,as but one example of so many, can anyone explain this? After a $185,000,000 reduction in core allocations to the Jewish Agency and the Joint -- while JFNA leaders watched it happen in almost total silence -- how can this group of "leaders" possibly believe that they (and this is about them) should control the application of our federations' and donors' core allocations? When they learned that the Agency and Joint have had to reduce their allocations to a favored program (solely because of these core allocation reductions), how can they rationally suggest that "...this will stop when we control the Global Planning Table?" But, this is exactly how they think, how they behave and what they say. They engage in denial that they have any responsibility whatsoever for the outcomes forced upon JDC and the Jewish Agency.

Now, not for the first time but hopefully the last, I place the responsibility for assuring that JFNA becomes the leader of our national system for the federations and not for itself in your hands, in the hands of you, the leaders, lay and professional, of the federations. It is no longer enough to tell me in private meetings (where I have listened to you in confidence) how terribly dysfunctional our national system is, decrying the waste and disarray that are on-going but doing nothing about it. Chevre, it's time for you to grab the wheel and turn this ship around.

We will see how it goes. My hope and expectation are that this space will be devoted in the months ahead to other matters of concern to all of us in Jewish life rather than JFNA. But if the leaders of JFNA continue to pursue the irrelevant and insubstantial and pursue their personal vendettas without any evident understanding of the core values and timeless principles that were and are at the heart of our communal hopes and dreams, then...!!?? Let's together aspire to the most that we can be; we have seen the waste of aspiring to the least.

To the 800 and more of you who have read these Posts three times a week for three and one-half years and who have understood my motivation and my inspiration, in the words of one of my favorite films: "I love you guys!!" Let's close this chapter with those words of inspiration: Eem ain ani li, mi li? V'im lo achshav aymotei?

-30-

Rwexler

SPECIAL PLEADERS

2011-06-27T05:22:00.003-05:00

JFNA has many wonderful professionals on its staff. I know that were they allowed to focus on new and big ideas, JFNA would not be where it is today. But, here is what they have been ordered to do over the past months:

~ Beg federation staffers to provide subsidies to and recruit for TribeFest;

~ Plead with federation Endowment pros to attend the "second North American Jewish Legacy Forum" in Kansas City -- thirty-three communities did so. The agenda included "...future events and communications around 'Create A Jewish Legacy,' such as a third Legacy Forum...";

~ Call federation leaders in communities with Dues issues to: (1) excoriate them; (2) plead for full payment; or (3) deny that the federations have "hardships;"

~ Call CEOs to demand that they call a mega-donor in their community to get them to attend the first meeting of the new albeit the same Mega-Donor Group;

~ Call whoever they know in federations to plead that the federation participate in the ill-conceived "Select Core Priorities" program -- calls generally falling on the deafest of ears. No reference in those calls to holding the core allocation to the Jewish Agency and Joint -- just forgot, I guess.

This is but a partial list, of course. Soon, very soon, our federation pros and lay people will be getting urgent JFNA calls to, among other things: (1) support the Global Planning Table...please; (2) get people to attend (and provide even greater subsides) Festivus II; (3) attend the Denver GA; and (4) and always, pay your Dues.

These are JFNA professionals with the potential to do great things, doing as they are directed. If there is a professional malaise at 25 Broadway, guess why.

Rwexler

EVEN FROM 7,000 MILES AWAY...

2011-06-26T05:48:00.000-05:00

Dan Brown, the founder and editor of ejewishphilanthropy, never ceases to amaze me with his insights into our system. On the eve of the Jewish Agency meetings, Dan published several observations, one of which dealt with the sense from 7,000 miles away from my home, the disaster that JFNA's leaders seek to impose on our system, locally, nationally and globally through the Global Planning Table. Here is what Dan wrote last Friday:

"Indirectly related to the tensions surrounding the (Jewish Agency) board meeting, in the Jewish Federations "handling" of their desired Global Planning Table (GPT) and how money is allocated for overseas needs. This is another place where it is difficult to tell where it will eventually play out, but despite being in self-denial, JFNA's lay and professional leadership needs to not only understand but accept, that this continuing fiasco has caused them significant damage across not only the federation system but across all meaningful global giving discussions." (emphasis added)

But, at 25 Broadway and Greensboro, N.C., they push forward without regard to the consequences. More's the pity.

Rwexler

WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN

2011-06-24T05:24:00.002-05:00

As an outgrowth of a JFNA (f/k/a UJC) FRD Study, among the Co-Chairs of which was Michael Lebovitz, the immediate past Philanthropic Resources Chair, JFNA engaged in a partnership with two "emerging communities" -- Las Vegas and Phoenix -- communities of high potential as yet unrealized. The abandonment of these partnerships dictated unilaterally by JFNA leadership while they pursued their own agendas is but one example of an organization gone wrong.

Las Vegas. At the onset of the JFNA-Las Vegas partnership, Las Vegas was the fastest growing Jewish community in the United States. Over the few years of the partnership, thanks to great local lay and professional leadership, the community campaign, if I recall correctly, jumped/sky-rocketed from under $1 million to over $4 million. JFNA's role in this partnership was supportive and as a national "cheerleader," called upon, among other things, to assist the community in its direction and in the creation of both a new culture and in alternative means of developing critically needed infrastructure.

The national/local partnership was unilaterally terminated by JFNA at the most critical of moments: the recession hit Las Vegas especially hard (and continues to); and an entire new group of professional leaders were coming aboard. JFNA didn't merely terminate the partnership, it abandoned Las Vegas at its moment of greatest needs. The annual campaign has dropped to a little over $1 million. Most of its largest contributors no longer are. And where is JFNA at this moment? It drops in for "events" like TribeFest and TribeFest II and then disappears until the next event.

Phoenix. An equally sad story. The Phoenix Jewish community was growing by leaps and bounds. Geographically spread out with very low affiliation rates, with an annual campaign in stasis and a separately incorporated Foundation seemingly competing with Federation, the Phoenix community was a perfect paradigm for the "emerging community." JFNA's leaders determined that it was necessary to have a written "contract" with Phoenix "spelling out" the responsibilities of the "partners" and, seemingly no sooner than the ink was dry, without notice or discussion, JFNA walked away.

And, since, the Federation has literally collapsed. Its CEO has left, its lay leadership has stepped in...and last month that leadership voted to put an end to the Jewish Federation of Greater Phoenix with the formation of something called the Jewish Community Association of Greater Phoenix -- a "federation" no longer. It appears that the main focus of the new Association is to operate and manage the beautiful Campus of the Valley of the Sun JCC...and, then,"we'll see."

****

Could a JFNA that understood that among its critical purposes is assisting the Las Vegases and Phoenixes of the federation world have made a difference in either instance? While we will never know, it is clear that JFNA's "walk away" at critical moments didn't help, that's for certain. What is also clear is that these partnerships were hard work...and holy work...and for those of us involved, the reward of working with federation lay and professional leaders who cared so much. But, this JFNA, our JFNA had more important things on its plate -- based on history, I just can't for the life of me figure out what.

Rwexler

CATCHING UP...ONCE MORE

2011-06-22T05:40:00.001-05:00

As we wind the Blog down toward June 30, it's hard to avoid some of the "stuff' that JFNA provides on a more or less daily basis. Some of it good, some of it bad and some of it...strange. For example:

~ The strange. On June 20 the JFNA Briefing: JFNA Participates In Israeli Emergency Simulation Drill. I think the purpose was to tell us how important JFNA-Israel is but to me it just suggested the following:

LEADERSHIP BRIEFING: JFNA PARTICIPATES IN FIRE DRILL AT 25 BROADWAY.

JFNA staff participated today in a fire drill exercise at its New York Headquarters. Alerted by the New York City Fire Department that the drill would take place today, JFNA mobilized its floor captains and hall monitors to assure that....

Worthy of a Briefing? Only at JFNA...

~ The good. After fifteen years the Jewish Leadership Forum will convene with minimum gift requirement from the high potential leaders who will attend. That's great and a major step forward, coupled with the progress made in last year's event, toward making the JLF federation-centric. Congratulations to the JLF lay and professional leadership.

Rwexler

FACT OF THE MONTH

2011-06-21T05:26:00.000-05:00

FACT
OF THE
DAY/MONTH

I received an e-mail from Dr. Conrad Giles and Rabbi Steve Gutow; you probably received the same one. It was a mass mailed solicitation letter on JCPA's behalf following up on one sent pre-Pesach -- "last chance" to contribute $250 or more to JCPA (and ridiculous out of the Holiday context). It was serendipitous that it arrived shortly after I learned that the notorious JFNA Alliance had determined that to maintain the allocation to JTA at its current funding level, it would reduce funding to...the Foundation for Jewish Culture and the NCSJ rather than spreading that reduction equally among all of the funded national agencies.

Thus, in addition to JTA being supported at its current levels, so were the other largest funded national agencies -- the JCCA, Hillel, JESNA, the AFJCA and...JCPA. Many, if not all, of the national agencies which suffered no reduction in allocation through the Alliance's secret "process" have development staffs or consultants; hence the JCPA mail solicitation.

Does JFNA concern itself with this rogue fund raising by organizations that are the beneficiaries of our federation campaigns through the Alliance? Does it even know it's going on? (I do recall that about three years ago after one of CEO Rieger's failed fund raising attempts -- this one for the JFNA/JCPA partnership in the IAI -- he merely told JCPA to go out and raise the money itself.) Does it even care that (1) this is taking place and (2) if it knew or didn't, should JFNA's "leaders" not be concerned that JCPA is raising money during the critical time in almost all federation annual campaigns?

The Fact is "guess not."

On another note the JFNA Daily Media Guide now links to articles about George Soros!! WHY would that be? And does this Daily exercise really provide value?

Rwexler

"RETIREMENT"

2011-06-18T05:48:00.008-05:00

At calendar year-end, I retired from the practice of law after 45 years. This is something I had planned for the last two years and I and my Firm worked out a transition over the past years. Over the last six months, I have received many messages and questions (as has my wife) from friends and family -- here are a few with some answers:

~ "Is everything OK?" -- from those who fear that I was pushed into retirement for spending too much time blogging. So far, so great.

~ "You're too young" -- from my grandchildren -- G-d bless 'em -- and a few others (some of whom fear that if I am home I will drive my wife nuts). I wish it were true.

~ "What are you going to do with your time? I am almost afraid to ask" -- from a wonderful professional partner who has admonished me from the beginning about this Blog. See below.

~ "You might want to take up wood-turning" -- from a long-time professional partner at JFNA (who I suggested might have wanted me to chop off both my hands in the process). No, I do not know what "wood-turning" is except that it involves, inter alia, lathes, scrapers and "chucks."

So, here are some of my plans: I am officing 5 minutes from my home, with my uncle and cousin. I have a chance to breakfast and lunch with many friends in the 'burbs similarly situated where we engage in, as Woody Allen described it so perfectly, "...the customary exchange of insincere remarks about how neither of us had aged." I am working with an editor on a book that I hope to get published that consists of anecdotes and stories and is tentatively titled: "Dumb Jews...and Other Stories" or "'Who Told You About That...and other Questions." More likely -- Judgment Fled...The Musings of a Wandering Jew.(Or I may convert the Blog to book form.) We are going to visit our children and grandchildren far more often. And I have a few plans for Jewish service. In addition, I have been very gratified by the outreach from two national publications which have inquired over the past two months in whether I would bring the Blog to their publications.

And, the Blog. It's time (or long past time in the opinion of many) to put a -30- to this saga. While I despair that JFNA is unable, actually refuses, to effect changes to reflect the goals that all of us had and have for it, on June 30, after over 650 Posts, I will place the Blog on the shelf and observe whether the federation owners -- that's you -- will take responsibility for the Dues we pay. Clearly the very idea of this Blog, let alone its execution, has been accompanied by charges that I am guilty of nothing less than heresy. The so-called "leaders" of JFNA continue to attack me -- always, of course, in the shadows. Now, they can, if they are able, focus on more critical things. And, if they don't, if they can't, and if you, the owners don't stand up, this Blog will return.

To those of you who have asked "how are you doing?" Just fine, thanks. (Ask me again in 6 months. Or ask Roberta for the honest answer.) As James Taylor wrote: "the secret of life is enjoying the passage of time."

And to those who may choose to continue to attack me: Enjoy. But remember Life isn't about how you survive the storm, but how you dance in the rain.

Tomorrow is my 70th Birthday. Can't wait. See ya'.

Rwexler

CATCHING UP...ONCE AGAIN

2011-06-17T05:50:00.000-05:00

~ It's nice and appropriate that JFNA remembers those great philanthropists and communal leaders upon their deaths. But, how does one explain the eulogy appearing on June 13 for one of our People's best ever, one who died on April 2? Did they forget? Were they asleep at the switch? Whatever? All of the above?

~ Whenever I am at breakfast reading the International Herald Tribune, I know that I am in a place I love and/or with people I love and admire. The latter us certainly true as I write this from Moscow. In today's Trib appeared three headlines that caused me to ponder: (1) "Walesa is ill with pneumonia, but his health is called good;" and (2) "Blogger known as 'Gay Girl' is American man;" and, to make Mel Brooks proud, (3) "A 21-volume dictionary for a language not spoken for 2,000 years." Then, I went back to my breakfast.

~ A brilliant Comment to my Post on "Arrogance Unbound" questioned why any federation or donor would "trust" JFNA to substitute its determination of the application of overseas allocations. "JFNA is a mess" the Comment went on. That is, of course, a seminal question. JFNA has been charged with certain basic responsibilities, none of which...that's "none" as in zero...other than JFNA-Washington and disaster relief are being performed adequately if at all...yet, it believes its judgment is better than that of the federations themselves, our donors and JDC and the Jewish Agency. Why? Just because "we are JFNA" apparently.

~ Rebranding, again? One of the FOB caught this one: on June 16, we received the JDNA Daily Media Guide -- that's right, "JDNA." The reader asked: "huh?" So, I Googled "JDNA." Here's the answer: "JDNA is ... currently the sole distributor for Gogo's Crazy Bones in Noth America." Sounds about right to me.

Rwexler

Rwexler

SUCCESS!!

2011-06-17T05:23:00.000-05:00

JFNA reported last Thursday on a real success. I had expressed my cynicism as to JFNA's ability to bring together mega-donors as a group. After four years of talk, they did it and in a Leadership Briefing announced Leadership Roundtable Convenes Major Donors. Setting aside JFNA's obsession with "tables" -- round, global, etc. -- there were 25 mega-donors present for this first meeting, a feat in itself.

Presentations by Steve Nasatir and John Ruskay key-noted the meeting.

Truly a success.

Rwexler

ARROGANCE UNBOUND

2011-06-15T05:04:00.000-05:00

While the Jewish Agency for Israel and the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee pleaded with JFNA to advocate for their collective funding needs over the past six years, JFNA leaders looked at them as if they were crazy. While allocations to JAFI and JDC core allocations dropped by over $100 million over the same timeframe, JFNA leaders shrugged their shoulders -- "not out problem." But now, with JAFI, the Joint and even ORT actively engaged in financial resource development activities -- much like Birthright Israel -- and gearing up for more, JFNA in the guise of the federations' national organization is threatening the partners with so-called draconian "Guidelines" that JFNA wants to impose -- er, make that "discuss" with JAFI and JDC -- and, let's be clear, only with JDC and JAFI -- not with ORT, not with Birthright, not even with itself (for, you will recall, JFNA proposes to fund raise to supplement its own budget).

Arrogance? How's this....The IEF, the Israel Education Fund, was the tri-party creation of the Jewish Agency, the Government of Israel and the United Jewish Appeal. It served those interests by attracting donors to projects in Israel -- it was professionally led for the last two decades-plus by Yitzchak Shavit, z"l. Shavit ran the IEF as a one-person shop, more or less, from within JFNA post-merger, while he also professionally directed the UIA and, at the end, the Network. It has taken JFNA, with no capacity...none...to serve the interests of donors or JAFI, less than two months since Itzik's death, to begin to push the IEF into a new direction -- toward the non-existent Global Planning Table -- vu den? Those who would control all things couldn't pass up this chance could they? My suggestion, the Agency, having no interest in maintaining the IEF within JFNA, should pull it out, staff it and expand it under JAID.

Then, this Keystone Kops operation that is our national organization has promulgated a Position Paper -- JFNA Relationship with JAFI and JDC: Fundraising and Co-Branding. If it weren't for the chutzpah, it would be laughable...actually it is laughable anyway. In a White Paper emanating from 25 Broadway, never discussed with the Agency or Joint, JFNA demands adherence to a set of JFNA-dictated yet undefined "guidelines," the violation of which will result in sanctions upon the partner found to be in violation. (Oh, there may also be sanctions imposed on federations which fail to meet an undefined minimum unrestricted core allocation [with all kinds of "prior conditions" and reasoning together]. Not surprising, but this has never been discussed with the federations -- at least we have consistency to go with the arrogance.)

It's impossible for the Keysone Kops to remember that but five years ago Itzik and I, working with Michelle Tycher Stein, and Barbara Promislow and Dvora Blum in Israel, developed fund raising Guidelines which were accepted by the Agency and Joint. Never implemented by JFNA, that was before JFNA's leaders stood on the sidelines for the past six years with a "tsk tsk" and watched the core allocations to the partners drop by over $100,000,000. And, now...now...these same leaders want to control all. One can only express awe at their unbridled chutzpah.

One can only speculate as to what could possibly be JFNA leaders' intent in promulgating a White Paper that could not possibly be accepted by those for whom it is intended. My conclusion: JFNA wants to blame the Jewish Agency and Joint for the entire JFNA/Jewish Agency/Joint contract falling apart. What better way, in the minds of the Keystone Kops, then to publish a Paper the terms of which had to be known to them to be totally beyond the pale. But, these Klever Keystone Kops should know better -- JFNA bears all of the blame here. Their "straw man," their "White Paper," fails the good faith smell test in every way.

As always.

Rwexler

THE SILLY SEASON AT 25 BROADWAY

2011-06-13T05:37:00.002-05:00

Last week was quite something at 25 Broadway, let's take a peek:

~ Silverman announced that new hire Joanne Moore would not only "direct" something called the Global Planning Department (heretofore non-existent) but would also "plan" the GA and direct JFNA's non-existent planning and research effort while "managing" the non-existent GPT. And she would do all of this from D.C. while reporting directly to Jerry. Open questions: (1) what does this appointment mean to JFNA Global Operations: Israel and Overseas; (2) how will Global Planning integrate with Global Operations (by the way, one doesn't exist, the other appears not to) if at all; and (3) what are the organizational implications for Rebecca Caspi and that huge expense in Israel; and (4) can one person actually do all of these things? Was any of this thought through? Does anyone remember that the JFNA Executive Committee was created as an "operational Executive" for just this purpose -- to reason through just this kind of operational change.

~ From time-to-time I go to the Jewish Federations of North America website -- just to read what new mischief is going on. I did so last week and right there, on the Home page was a link to something called The Israel Solidarity Drive -- something to which you can "DONATE NOW." Gosh, you go the link and learn that The Israel Solidarity Drive and learn that the Drive has already raised $9 million...that's $9,000,000...which has largely gone to help Southern Israel recover from attacks and invest in disaster preparedness. Then you see links to atrocities dating back to March.

But, then, reading on, the Drive really isn't one...might have been one once but not now. Upon inquiry I learned from one who knows better than I -- "It's probably been sitting on a shelf since (Operation) Cast Lead. Someone must have knocked it (to the floor) when they cleaned out their office after being right-sized and it rolled into Jerry's office." So, there you are -- right there on the JFNA Home Page -- a "campaign" that isn't and almost never was. Maybe Jerry should put Joanne in charge of this as well?

Next to dysfunctional organization in the dictionary is JFNA's logo.

Rwexler

DISTRACTED BY SHINY OBJECTS

2011-06-11T05:30:00.003-05:00

So, over the past few years, rather then reform its governance and those who govern us, JFNA has been permitted by us to distract us with a bunch of shiny objects -- Heroes, #ish, rebranding, TribeFest, GPT. But, on closer examination, these shiny objects aren't silver...just dross....just waste material to distract us. Week after week, day following day, we follow the shiny objects, often-times applauding them as any claque would do.

For some who have watched, as one involved friend observed, JFNA has been engaged in "raccoon management" -- chasing shiny objects. It's been much worse than that, confusing the shiny objects for goals and results. For example, TribeFest "attracted" a purported 1300 participants; lost $253,000. If you accept JFNA's numbers -- notoriously overstated -- the organization lost $200/participant (before accounting for the additional costs of staff overhead and travel). So, what does JFNA do -- it declares and declares and congratulates itself on a great victory and plans for another TribeFest. No thought is given to just supporting another organization with a proven track record with this generation -- like jewlicious or Moishe House -- instead we have a crazy, wasteful and frivolous effort now to be repeated. Shiny objects...

The Young Leadership Cabinets, once the pride of our system, the place where so many of the men and women who lead federations and federation campaigns today, learned and committed so much, are but shadows of what they once were. They raise less today than at any point in the history of the United Jewish Appeal. Rather than Washington and Tel Aviv Conferences, they read the scripts for TribeFest. And we see JFNA chase shiny objects instead. And the federation leaders sit on their hands, eyes and mouths closed. Shameful...

$2,000,000 of our donors' dollars "invested" in "rebranding" to JFNA and how much more "invested" in "spreading the brand? And, to what end? UJA is still the "brand of record." Cost to the system for "UJA the brand"...none. Examine the 2012 Budget and see if you can determine how much will now be invested in "JFNA the brand?" Shiny objects...

And now JFNA's "leaders" chase the Holy Grail of the GPT as if it were a panacea. But, trust me, your objections, your constructive criticism of the GPT are being totally ignored. More millions will be wasted on a product that few want and, to the best of my knowledge, for those who have examined the GPT "model" carefully, no one supports. Shiny objects...

A perceptive observer once said that "chasing shiny objects can lead an organization...into failure." Federation leaders, take your hands away from your eyes and look what we have permitted to happen by our silence, with our acquiescence and, too often, by our silence, with our encouragement.

Rwexler

OMG!!!

2011-06-08T05:16:00.009-05:00

Let's say that in your business life you are a lawyer. You attend a negotiation with the other parties to a transaction; the negotiation is in good faith, all of the parties are acting in good will. The parties plan another meeting to iron out many details and open issues. You decide unilaterally to draft a contract which you then characterize as incorporating "all of the understandings of the parties" even though the document contains only your version of the facts and your determination of the agreements reached. You send the document out and demand that it be signed as is. What would happen in the real world? You would be laughed at, your work product scorned, negotiations would be over.

And, such is life at JFNA. JAFI and JDC entered into an agreement that modified the split between them; it failed when JFNA (guess who) unilaterally redrafted it...not once, but twice. Then last fall, JFNA, JAFI and JDC leaders met. While preparing for a follow-up meeting , the JAFI and Joint leaders received (unannounced) a document drafted by JFNA (guess who) purporting to represent their agreement but so far beyond the discussions that JAFI and JDC were forced to substantially revise it over the virulent and ceaseless objection of JFNA's leaders.

And so it has gone with the Global Planning Table -- the "plan" for which was yet to be discussed face-to-face with JDC leadership at the time this Post was written. And so it has gone with a so-called "White Paper" on JAFI and Joint FRD and co-branding and community advocacy -- no discussion, just fiat, dictate, demand and veto. The lack of any sense of good faith or good will self-evident in every document, in every "shall not," in every "will not." Yet, the Board Chair clings to the myth she has perpetuated that the GPT has inherent value with the tenacity of what the New York Times described as to another "process," "...like a koala to a eucalyptus tree." The only party to the GPT for which the Table would have any apparent value would be JFNA...and, even then, at what price...to the federations, to the Jewish Agency and the JDC and to JFNA itself?

And, then this. Making the ultimate mockery of process, and as if the Agreement with the Jewish Agency and the Joint doesn't exist, Jerry yesterday proudly announced the appointment of a D.C. lay leader -- with a distinguished background in business, government and federation -- as the Senior V-P of a new "Global Planning Department" -- this "Department...will manage the Global Planning Table." That's the Global Planning Table that doesn't exist...and may never exist. JFNA has found a new way to define institutional insanity. I can hear the argument now: "But we must have the Global Planning Table, we already have a Department." Fiat, dictate, demand and veto. OMG!!

Some have suggested to me that every step has been planned to make the GPT a reality...every step. The most major donors ignored; communities which have marched lockstep with JFNA down every path into every other brick wall...ignored. The GPT is to these "leaders" like cocaine is to a crack-head. Got to have it!! Got...to...have...it. Any and every objection, no matter the source, will be ignored in pursuit of this Holy Grail of control.

Friends, in any successful consensus-driven organization, the search for common ground begins with a meeting, with discussion, with agreement on broad points leading to agreement on the details. More and more leaders are brought into the discussion and a broad consensus emerges. But...not at JFNA where those who lead seem never to understand how to do so.

In any event, chag sameach...

Rwexler

JFNA RULES

2011-06-05T05:24:00.001-05:00

In response to a Post, a correspondent who appears to know JFNA intimately and from the inside, sent the following set of "Rules:"

" JFNA RULES

Federations will do nothing unless prodded to do so

To survive, staff and lay volunteers must not question or make waves

The best decision is one made in a phone booth

It all comes down to marketing

Intelligence is over rated

The best consultant is one not tainted by exposure to a local community (because there is little to learn from the local experience)

Overseas travel is good; overseas funding less so"

I thank the writer for his/her insights. I might have added the mandate from the current monarchy: "Let them eat cake but pay Dues."

Rwexler

WHAT JFNA NEITHER KNOWS NOR CARES ABOUT

2011-06-03T04:59:00.001-05:00

You might think that on his travels across the Continent, Jerry Silverman might actually engage in a meaningful debate about the federation system and what JFNA's roles might be in such a changed circumstance. Yeah, so you might think...but you would be wrong. For our CEO and President is a salesman...and those 80-plus federation visits, begun as a Hillary Clinton-style "listening tour" have now become sales trips -- but Jerry is no longer selling Dockers, he's a modern day medicine man selling...well, to put it bluntly...bullshit. Tribefest 2, Heroes, the Denver GA and stuff of that ilk -- ignoring the reality of close to $1 million lost in those efforts even as JFNA tried to pump them up with subsidies, etc. And Jerry has traveled hither and yon with the Global Planning Table team, trying to sell what would be the end of our system rather than listening to concerns.

What choice does he have, some would ask? After all this has been his Board Chair's pursuit of her Holy Grail -- the end product, as she sees it, of her quest for control of all things even as she controls today only the minutiae. Perhaps, even her next Chairmanship? How does a CEO resist that? Well, the CEO could call any one of many Federation CEOs across the Continent, so many of the best of whom have been "managing" lay leaders for years. He might ask them "what do I do when...?" Or, perhaps, worst case Silverman agrees with his Chairs, views JDC and JAFI as mere supplicants while calling them "partners" in all public pronouncements -- like the new "40 partners" in the Festivus and no more worthy than they.

But, in the Global Planning Table circumstance, certainly Jerry (and if not him, his faithful liege, Jim Lodge, or the consultant), who has traveled the Continent listening, allegedly, at the so-called "GPT Regional feedback" meetings, has heard, loud and clear, that there is no consensus...none...for the GPT as "planned," strong opposition to "folding in national agency funding" into the GPT and a total rejection of the underlying thesis that the GPT will not reverse in any way the $100 million (+) allocations reduction over the last six years -- six years in which JFNA leaders engaged in no advocacy whatsoever. And where has the Board Chair been during these "feedback sessions?" Other than at the meeting with JAFI leaders and the JFNA Executive Committee meeting, nowhere to be found. (And, at the Executive Committee, as she heard one negative comment after another, rather than understanding, she chose to strike back defensively at federation leaders who appeared to oppose her grand scheme, using her usual technique of ridiculous argument and feeble cross-examination, suggesting to one JFNA supporter that that she knew [of course] more about what was going on in one program in his community than did he.)

While all this Global Planning Table "selling" is going on, Jerry and his "team," seem unaware of significant new efforts at "redefining" and reconstructing federation in a number of communities. (No, I am not talking about Philadelphia, where leadership believes that "change" in a negative annual campaign environment means eliminating core allocations to JAFI and the Joint [while supporting the discredited Global Planning Table "plan" -- of course] and not Los Angeles, likewise -- both communities having become the bell-weathers for JFNA -- they pay their Dues [and support the GPT], don't they?) Where is that debate, where is that discussion? Debate and discussion of what federations are doing? You have got to be kidding.

Rwexler

IDLE THOUGHTS...

2011-06-01T05:23:00.006-05:00

Just thinking about....

~ Festivus II, the rerun. As you recall, the original Festivus convened in Party City Las Vegas. While Festivus the Second is currently proposed for Las Vegas, consider this -- The Hangover I film was set in Vegas; The Hangover 2...in Bangkok, Thailand. It's a huuuuuge hit. So, TribeFest II in Thailand. See you there.

~ Summer Camps. JFNA sends out a Fact of the Day proudly embracing the opening of Jewish Agency summer camps in the FSU. Must have forgotten that another 18,000 young men and women were turned away because of a lack of available funds; must need a Global Planning Table to remind them. So let's do some planning about that, huh?

~ Memory Issues. Then there was this remarkable May 26 JFNA Leadership Briefing celebrating the 20th Anniversary of Operation Solomon, the international effort, led by Israel, that brought the surviving remnant (or so we thought) of Ethiopian Jewry to Israel by airlift and the Special Campaign folded into Operation Exodus to help fund our national portion. Where did JFNA go to find the quotes, the background, the sense of leaders at the time? To Joel Tauber, vu den? Joel thought back to those days when, he said, in 1991 he was UJA National Chair -- "...national UJA chairman in 1991 and a guiding force in the Ethiopian immigration campaign." Only one problem: in 1991, Marvin Lender was UJA National Chair -- Joel's service began in 1992. Maybe Joel believes that he and Marvin were interchangeable, two halves making up one whole. He would be wrong. Tracking backward: I was National Chair 1996-1998; Richie Pearlstone, 1994-1996; Joel Tauber, 1992-1994; Marvin Lender, 1990-1992. But, it's OK, Joel, just a couple of months ago, you took exclusive credit for the Operation Exodus Campaign. Soon it will be credit for the parting of the Red Sea. (See, Irving Bernstein's, z'l, authoritative volume Living UJA History for a list of UJA National Chairs and their years of service.)

~ Branding gone mad. Sports Illustrated recently published the following under its rubric -- Sign of the Apocalypse: "A federal judge ordered the U.S. Polo Association to stop producing merchandise with a logo featuring two silhouetted horsemen and the word polo because, he said, it confused customers of the Ralph Lauren Polo line." Ahem!! Can you picture the Jerry/Kathy show running around suing federations for using the "federation" name because: "they're not JFNA?" Just asking.

~ Maybe, like your Blogger, you received an e-vite to the JFNA King David Society Mission to Argentina this December. I was pretty excited at first -- sounds like a terrific Itinerary, top hotel, etc. Cost? For a $25,000 (or more) donor? $4500. Then you have to page through a series of links to learn that $4500 doesn't include air fare. Minor omission. Should one really have to dig so deeply to find out the real price? Guess so.

~ Does anyone remember? So, does anyone out there remember why the Jewish Agency and the Joint agreed to the "Select Core Priorities" ill-conceived plan? Aren't most federations which have given this some thought, rejecting the notion outright -- "thanks, but no thanks?" Does anyone remember the JFNA rationale for this....this....thing? Other than JFNA staff calling all federations to urge them to implement the Select Core Priorities (and, when asked "why?" they can't respond without looking at their script), what real advocacy is going on? NONE!

Rwexler

BIZARROLAND

2011-05-31T05:33:00.000-05:00

about There is at least one Federation of the 157 that is without doubt the single most incredible place in the constellation of federations. Back in the day it had created so much debt that its then leadership had to engage in heroic acts to retire it...and they did. In doing so, that leadership fell behind on many obligations -- overseas allocations payments and national system Dues, among others.

Fast forward to the JFNA "era" if you will. First, this federation hires a terrific, experienced professional leader; then lets him go. Hired a new professional leader, one with what appears to be a strong FRD background. Then, communal facilities were damaged by hurricane; the federation sought hardship Dues relief from JFNA, rejected outright by JFNA's "leaders." The federation's Chair and CEO effectively "dismissed" past Chairs from any role in the communal instrumentality when those federation Chairs were told that they must increase their annual campaign gifts of they would be off the Board. Good faith attempts to resolve these issues were rejected unilaterally by the federation's leaders.

Incredible salaries were paid to a CEO and his top aide -- approved apparently by the Chair, the CEO'S biggest supporter even as the annual campaign dropped precipitously...but that CEO became ill on the job and when he returned to health was informed that his contract would not be renewed. Then a new CEO was hired-- given a contract for an extremely brief time frame (one- and one-half years). That term lasted but a few months.

A new Chair was elected and this federation jumped the gun on the Select Core Priorities -- with no discussion just threw what I understand was about $45,000 to the JDC -- that's from a Federation that allocates about 6% of its campaign for overseas needs in total...yes, 6%. And, under the Global Planning Table, 6% would qualify for "membership." Huh?

Then on April 21, 2011, within 25 minutes of each other, the Federation Chair e-mailed the community (or what is now left of it) to announce tersely and suggestively that, first, the CEO and, next, the Foundation Director, had "resigned." Not even a "thanks for your service to the community," just...gone.

And, the Annual Campaign? A shell of its former self -- down another $1 million more or less this year. When I wrote that our communal success is dependent upon the trust the donors have in the Federation, I could have been thinking about Bizzaroland.

(Was Jerry consulted in the midst of any part of this mess? Just asking inasmuch as Bizarroland pays $650,000 in annual JFNA Dues...that's $650,000, my friends...2% of JFNA's Budget. Hello...and hello, again.)

As one of the FOBs said: "You couldn't make this stuff up." Another, very knowledgeable in the workings (or dysfunction) of this federation, suggested that just as with the Los Angeles Dodgers, the Commissioner of Major League Baseball, should take over this federation: "after all," she said, "the circumstances are the same -- ...no money, no leadership and no...support" -- only worse.

Rwexler

ONCE UPON A TIME...

2011-05-28T05:17:00.001-05:00

Once upon a time, long, long ago, in a land called UJA the United Jewish Appeal brought together what became known as the Mega-Donor Group. The effort was chaired by immediate past Chair of the UJA Board, the incredible Marvin Lender, a mega-contributor himself, Max Fisher, z'l, our remarkable and indefatigable patriarch of Jewish communal life, and Brian Lurie, then the UJA CEO, one of the most creative professional leaders in our history.

Building on their participation in the leadership and inspiration of Operation Exodus, these million dollar donors came together, "elected" Charles Bronfman and Les Wexner as Co-Chairs, effectively asked Brian Lurie to leave, and met periodically to discuss among themselves philanthropic projects in which they were personally interested, often joining together in coalitions of the willing with varying membership. At one time, I recall, Max invited Bob Aronson, then the Detroit Federation CEO, to present to the group but it was a rare moment when the federation system was the focus (or even mentioned?). The Mega-Group eventually "dissolved" and the participants generally went off in their own philanthropic directions.

At the insistence of, at the least, the Chicago and New York Federations, starting about four years ago JFNA committed itself to recreating the Mega-Donors Group albeit in a rebranded fashion. Howard Rieger committed to staffing the effort, Co-Chairs were recruited from among the great philanthropists in Chicago and NYC...and,of course, nothing happened. Fast forward to 2010, when Jerry Silverman agreed to lead the recruitment effort. Paul Kane was engaged by JFNA, at least in part, because his New York experience brought him into contact with any number of million dollar donors -- there is as we know a diffference between "contact" and engagement. I assume that philanthropist Dan Ochs, currently the Chair of Birthright Israel, agreed to Co-Chair the nascent effort at the urging of his great friend, the late Itzik Shavut, z"l.

But, at no time did JFNA examine the history of the UJA Mega-Donors effort to learn from it. This is their style -- if a book has already been written, they aren't even going to look at the Table of Contents. After all, they always know better and history is always to be disregarded. So JFNA has attempted to make contact with a group of mega-donors, inviting them to an initial meeting, the subject of which would include...federation and JFNA. Rather than allowing the "group" to come together and identify issues and concerns relevant to them, JFNA would dictate an agenda that may or may not be. And, from what I have learned, this dictation method has turned off any number of them; many of whom will not "waste their time."

In the UJA era, there was, in place, a body of mega-donors around whom the effort could be built. Today, in the JFNA "era," those lay leaders who have access to the most significant donors around the Continent, have either become disenchanted, disenfranchised or tossed aside. This has led to JFNA professionals pleading with federation CEOs to recruit mega-donors from within their federation boundaries to a meeting in New York in which these federation CEOs have played no part and in which they will play no part. This is a curious circumstance only to those who have not had any prior experience with the monarchy.

History tells us that putting together this unique group of leaders is extremely difficult even when a strong organization of strong leaders is calling the group together. Today's JFNA, lacking any credibility, and basically "unled," hasn't a prayer.

Rwexler

IF YOU DON'T KNOW...

2011-05-26T05:26:00.000-05:00

When I read the JFNA Draft Budget, it hearkened me back to the rubric: "If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there." And enwrapping a Budget in jargon and cliche doesn't make it a better guide to JFNA's plans for the coming year. Categories of service change, promises of monitoring and evaluation reappear (echoing the unrequited promises of previous years) and, trust me, confusion reigns. There is one applicable truism here: if JFNA has ten, twenty, thirty priorities, it has no priorities at all. And that is where we find ourselves today.

Sure, I hoped that the final Budget would show some real focus on federation needs, federation issues and on the things that JFNA could do best. Instead we have thirteen pages of "priority goals" -- a ridiculous 36 "priority goals" in all. Hence, "if you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there." Where there are no priorities, there is no focus, there is chaos. The final Budget and a book of Appendices merely validated the Draft Budget reflecting it like a fun house mirror.

So confused is this Budget that Development...er, Philanthropic Resources... has lumped within it all kinds of things: A "Millionaires project" after four years of this "project" first appearing in the Budget; "Targeted Support for Challenged Federations" the Objectives for which include "[D]evelop tools that will support JFNA's outreach and support for underperforming federations..." and "identify (hello? 'identify' after three years? Hey, look around) and support strategic collaborations...;" "...leverage the Consulting Fund" (the budget for which will be cut); "[c]ontinue to strengthen affinities" (when the position of lead professional for, e.g., the Young Leadership Cabinet has been vacant for, how long, two years?); "shape the (non-existent) missions program going forward; and so on -- as Salieri might have said: "too many words." How about Marketing funded to
"[I]ncrease the number of Federations that adopt continental branding from 76 (that's less than half)." And, of course, there is the implementation of the Global Planning Table; the delivery of a "white paper on new strategy for the GA;" "develop organizational capacity in the area of research" (after most of those experienced in research and planning have left); and a whole slew of plans from JFNA-Israel irrelevant to the federation system.

I could go on but, really, is it not evident that most of these plans and programs exist in a vacuum. What is the relationship of the page after page of programs to the Mission of JFNA? If there were one, of course. What we have instead is the JFNA version of an impregnable VENN diagram -- designed exactly that way and for that purpose -- you aren't supposed to know that the programs, generally, have no dollars attached to them -- the dollars, of course, being fungible with no controls. And, now federation leaders have approved this Budget in lockstep as the recent past was repeated. But...but...aren't federation leaders -- lay and professional alike -- sick of reflexively endorsing by their silence the unplanned narrative of JFNA's leaders?

To paraphrase Newsweek's Niall Ferguson (who was writing about Obama's failed foreign policy): "The defining characteristic (of JFNA) has been not just a failure to prioritize but also a failure to recognize the need to do so."

Rwexler

LET'S BE CLEAR

2011-05-25T08:37:00.003-05:00

In response to my Post in which I opined that the President did not deserve JFNA's warm (albeit hidden in a wave of words) support for his positions on Israel and the "peace process," I received an important Comment that began with the following: "Mr. Wexler your hatred of all things JFNA has gotten the better of you this time." And, while I find myself in agreement with all else this Anonymous Commentator wrote, I thought that this quoted conclusion required response:

How could I "...hate all things JFNA?" I helped to create it, with others I drafted its Vision and I understand its Mission. The structure of JFNA has within it my blood, sweat and tears and those of so many others, as well. What I do hate is what JFNA has become, the lack of purpose, the lack of priorities, the lack of leadership. And I admit to hating (although that's a pretty strong word) the frittering away of credibility on the narishkeit of personal vendettas and the pursuit of personal agendas at the expense of our system. And, yes, I do hate the reality that this leadership has totally abandoned the Mission conceived by the federations at the time of the merger -- that JFNA would be the place for the creation of greater resources for the federations and our partners while advocating for all.

I continue to see the potential for JFNA's greatness and strength and I will continue to strive with all of you to see JFNA emerge from the darkness to the light committed not just to "the brand" but to the federation agenda, not just to control but to involvement and engagement. But I admit that the current leadership appears incapable of this kind of achievement. With you I want a strong national system, one in which we can all take pride for all of its achievements. We are so far from those goals right now that they appear to be beyond our reach. But I, with you, will continue to strive for them even as I write this Blog in almost total frustration with the current leadership's aimless pursuits.

I have written of my love for the federation system and all that it has given to me and to my family over these past 38 years. It is not I who have abandoned it; it has abandoned me and so many of you, but, worse, it has abandoned the very system which sustains JFNA...and that is the ultimate irony and the ultimate tragedy.

Rwexler

CATCHING UP...AGAIN

2011-05-25T05:04:00.001-05:00

I watched the AIPAC Conference 2011 with great pride. Imagine a Conference of (mainly) Jewish leaders from across the land, standing in support of Israel, in numbers -- over 11,000 -- that not even in its wildest dreams could JFNA and, sadly, our federations -- conflate in their wildest dreams. A JFNA that to the date of this Post still has been unable to summon the koach, the strength, to speak out in opposition to President Obama's articulated formula for deconstructing the U.S.- Israeli relationship. JFNA instead, days after the fact, hid its statement in a Briefing applauding Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech to Congress, Here's what Jerry Silverman said (ostensibly on our behalf -- used the "we" quite often -- but maybe he meant just Kathy Manning, Michael Gelman and himself):
.
'We thank President Obama for his strong statements that Palestinian attempts to delegitimize Israel will fail, that attempts to isolate Israel internationally will not produce a Palestinian State, nor will attempts to achieve a unilateral declaration of statehood at the UN; that Hamas must renounce terror, and that the Palestinians must accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State,' said JFNA President and CEO Jerry Silverman."

And, yes, the President said that -- but he also said so much more and so much worse, as noted in strong op-eds by, e.g., Steve Huntley in the Chicago Sun-Times and Bret Stephens in The Wall Street Journal. But my/your organization
parses the President's words in an apparent search for good.

One organization, AIPAC, its Mission clear; the other, JFNA, unfocused, with no priorities and lacking courage. One attracts over 11,000 to its Policy Conference; the other attracts 2,500, if that, to our GA. As one great professional who attended the AIPAC Conference concluded, "Imagine, Richard, 11,000 Jewish leaders meeting together with a sense of common purpose!!" I can hardly remember the time when in fact we did have common purpose. Guess we will keep our seats in the House gallery occupied by Kathy Manning and Susie Stern today on our behalf.

Rwexler

KEEN OBSERVATION

2011-05-24T07:43:00.002-05:00

This morning, as with most mornings, one of my first "reads" is the daily e-jewish philanthropy Newsletter. Today's contained a thoughtful piece on the GPT from Stephen Donshik, for so many years the professional leader of the New York UJA-Federation Israel Office, whose analysis appears frequently in e-jewish philanthropy.

I reprint the article below:

"The Struggle for Relevance: JFNA and Overseas Allocations
May 24, 2011 by Stephen G. Donshik

I have spent the last several weeks studying JFNA’s Select Core Priorities (SCP) and its desire to reach consensus in the regard to the “Global Planning Table” (GPT). Yesterday, JFNA released a “Leadership Briefing -- Board Addresses Global Responsibility, Planning for the Future” (Dated May 23, 2011). I have read the available material on the Internet, spoken with volunteer leaders, and discussed it with professionals in the Federation field. During this time colleagues and I reached out to professionals at JFNA to engage them in a discussion and unfortunately we received less than a substantive response. It appears that JFNA’s recent Board Meetings created additional processes with fewer decisions leading to clearly defined preferred actions for the Federation system.

I have been involved in Jewish communal service for over 40 years and I have worked in and observed the international Jewish communal arena for more than 25 years. For almost the last twenty years there has been a great deal of structural change in the way the “players” have related to each other and tried to move their common and separate agendas forward. I am sure that many readers remember the Council of Jewish Federations (CJF) and the United Jewish Appeal (UJA). These two organizations were combined and went through phases from “Newco” to “United Jewish Communities” (UJC) to “The Jewish Federations of North America” (JFNA). All along the way there was, and continues to exist, an inherent tension on how the organized Jewish Federation community and individual local (Federation) communities would conceive of and organize to meet both local and overseas needs.

When the two separate organizations existed (as) CJF and UJA, it was relatively clear that CJF, as a membership organization, represented the interests of the local Federations and the system as a whole. The organization both advocated for the Federations’ interests and provided services to meet a continuum of needs from leadership development to endowment funds to structuring campaigns. UJA’s role was to be an advocate for the overseas needs and to continually provide information and represent the interests of the Federation’s overseas partners, mainly the Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI) through the United Israel Appeal and the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC).

Following the dismantling of the old framework and the creation of the UJC, a new system called ONAD, Overseas Needs Assessment and Distribution, was put into place. A more comprehensive understanding of the ONAD process can be found here.

Although the ONAD process was an interesting experiment in Jewish communal planning it successfully created an inordinate amount of tension and competition between the overseas partners. It is unclear whether it could ever be referred to as a “success” in achieving comprehensive planning for the Federations’ overseas agendas. It did manage to demonstrate how the system could not achieve its goals. There was an attempt to distinguish between JAFI and JDC. They were aiming to show how the two organizations were able to identify emerging needs overseas and develop services that were, at the very least not competitive, and, at the very most, complementary in their purposes and implementation.

Given the ONAD experience we would expect JFNA to design a system that would avoid the pitfalls of the previous experience. It should have aimed at creating a process that would not only bolster the local communities’ campaigns but also provide opportunities to strengthen the relationship between the overseas partners and the Federation system. Apparently the SCP 2011, was presented to the leadership of JFNA and local Federations and there was agreement on the idea but apparently, not in regard to implementing the SCP across the continent.

It appears as it if was easier for JAFI and JDC to overcome their competitiveness and agree to work together than it was to achieve implementation within the Federation system:

The proposed framework contains four key elements: revitalization of the historic global partnership of Jewish Federations, JDC and the Jewish Agency; establishing clear goals and operational guidelines for collective overseas engagement; creating a global planning table; and establishing an enhanced overseas allocations process for Jewish Federation funding. (Agreement Reached on Overseas Funding Framework, September, 2010)

Even though this framework was endorsed by the two overseas partners, it appears that there was no unity within the Federation system. In light of the SCP 2011, there was an expectation that local Federations would allocate funds overseas using these priorities. Unfortunately for the system there were communities that allocated lower amounts, perhaps as little as 5% of their campaign, and there were other communities that made a decision to forward upward toward 30% or more to JFNA for the overseas partners for their core budgets.

Once this imbalance was established it made it harder and harder for the system to agree to a GPT that would not only be accepted but also endorsed by the system. Those who are supportive of finding a system that would not only unify the Federations but also raise additional funds for allocating overseas are frustrated. The national system is not acting collectively and local Federations are finding it very difficult to look beyond their own local (and somewhat personal) interest.

Federations that are committed to both JFNA and the core budgets of the overseas partners, like New York and Chicago, may find it difficult to sit at the same table with communities that allocate either a small percentage of their funds to the core budgets or nothing at all.

If, and when, the GPT is utilized as a tool for decision-making it may be that some of the donor families that have been the “die-hard” supporters of the campaigns for decades will threaten to walk away because decisions are being made by Federations that do not represent their values or commitments to the overseas partners.

It appears that the disparity of interests among the member Federations has made it very difficult for the system to achieve consensus. The lack of a basic agreement among its members for the purposes of raising funds and allocating them to the overseas agencies raises serious questions about JFNA’s relevance. Does it lack the ability to fulfill its mandate as the membership organization of the Federations (ala CJF), on the one hand, and the advocate for overseas needs and services (ala UJA), on the other hand?

If the SCP and GPT are really a re-issuing of the less than successful ONAD process, then one has to question the relevance of JFNA in dealing with the challenges the Federations face in raising the funds the overseas agencies need to implement programs and deliver services. Something has to be done to motivate the national system to act collectively and to regain the shared passion that once existed in the way local communities raised and allocated funds. If this cannot be achieved by the local, national and international organizations then perhaps the present system needs to be re-examined."

Donshik's analysis is spot on. Is there anyone out there listening?

Rwexler

JFNA -- OUR ZOMBIE BRAND

2011-05-22T05:47:00.001-05:00

The title of this Post probably would have Jerry's attention. Let me explain...

A recently published discussion on "Zombie brands" caught my attention; seemed to me to capture the essence of JFNA. "Zombie brands," as Jerry surely knows a helluva lot better than I, are brands that live off their names after having relinquished the quality, the distinction, that made them well known. In 2011-2012, JFNA plans to invest even more than the $2,000,000 (+++) it has already wasted on establishing JFNA as the brand of the Federation system. Friends, I would wager that even today, over 11 years after the first iteration of JFNA leaders walked away from the power of the UJA brand, there is greater market recognition of UJA than of JFNA. And, of course, Jerry knows that.

So, the federations are asked to throw more money at a brand that will have no credibility until there is substance associated with it. JFNA's lay and professional leaders continue to confuse the message with substance, parties and events with substance; they seem to know not what substance is. And the drumbeat of form over substance is 24/5 at the least...and it is the very least. A Daily Media Guide that throws everything but the kitchen sink at the reader; without commentary (other than "observation"), it often cites to articles critical of the very federations it serves.

But, worse, on the critical issues, take the President's abandonment of Israel in an effort to curry favor with "the international community," JFNA has no voice whatsoever. With the IAI and the IAN, JFNA cannot bring itself to express the strong sense of our communities that Obama's position is just plain wrong, wrong-headed and dangerous. Are our leaders afraid that they won't be invited to White House Chanukah parties and briefings if they speak out? Or are they too busy with the GPT to have heard that President Obama has turned his back and worse on the only democracy, America's only friend in the Middle East. J Street doesn't speak for me, Abe Foxman (or is it ADL -- or are they one and the same) doesn't speak for me, Morton Klein doesn't speak for me either. But those who are supposed to be my, our, voice, are silent. And the silence is deafening. What did JFNA say (on May 20)? " [W]e believe it remains prudent to take a long view, beyond the moment, before making public comments." Ahhhh, the courage...the leadership...and just who is "we?"

So, JFNA continues to be the Zombie brand -- clueless, already outdated and by its own actions and silence...irrelevant.

Rwexler

JFNA, THE POTEMKIN VILLAGE OF JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS

2011-05-20T05:50:00.001-05:00

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary -- "Potemkin Village: an impressive facade or show designed to hide an undesirable fact or condition."

Eureka!! I have discovered the reality of JFNA -- it is the Jewish organizational equivalent of the Russian Potemkin Village. Hiding behind the facade of JFNA Washington, some marketing materials and a group of young professionals who would like to be and have the capacity to contribute in a meaningful way to federation growth, one discovers...nothing at all.

What do I mean? Take a careful look at JFNA-Israel. What do you see? Look at the 2011-2012 Budget for "Global Operations" -- what's there other than the expenditure of millions of our dollars? Examine the Global Planning Table -- who are the professionals responsible for this mythic structure -- Jim Lodge departs the professional staff next month; hiring is planned. Add $1.2 million to the GPT Budget and what do you have? Nothing at all.

Then you have Philanthropic Resources f/k/a Development f/k/a Campaign. Millions budgeted. You have some Regional "Ignitions," Planned Giving and Endowments, the constituencies and...nothing at all. Oh, of course, there are references to national and VIP Missions -- and that's exactly what they are...references.

Then, the new "core program," the Second Annual TribeFest. The first was such a "success" that it attracted about 1,000 young men and women not already involved in federation life to Las Vegas for what was advertised as a weekend of fun. Lost over $350,000 (when one includes staff overhead and travel; $253,000 without those). Let's build on that "success," sure.

Even programs with real promise appear to offer only a glimpse behind the Potemkin facade-- take the JFNA Professional Women's Leadership Conference -- strangely restricted to "...professional woman leader(s) in your federation (who) have worked in a Federation, non-profit organization or corporation for at least 10 years..." Jerry offered "Thoughts on Effective Leadership." Would love to have heard that one. Kathy spoke on something called "What, I Can Be a Mentor?" Huh? One, and only one, woman federation CEO or COO, Chief of Staff, Campaign or Endowment Director or EVP was a featured speaker at this Conference -- not the woman professional leaders from the LA Valley Alliance, New York UJA, Chicago, Hartford, Columbus, San Francisco, etc., etc., etc. Maybe the organizers didn't know they exist. The Conference was held in Chicago May 17-19; perhaps the group would have been best served by attending the Chicago JUF Women's Division Spring Event on May 18 -- and seen how over 1,000 women leaders, lay and professional, gather to express their commitment to community and People. But, no.

And, yet, this group that seems to have the reverse Midas touch, not content to revisit the continuous screw-up of JFNA itself, has convinced itself that it can control the overseas allocations process without screwing that up. It's "mirror, mirror on the wall" Fantasy-land. They look at the Potemkin Village they have created and all they see is a Shining City on the Hill, bright, reflecting their greatness.

I guess that gets them through the day.

Rwexler

HAVING A LAUGH

2011-05-18T05:46:00.002-05:00

If they weren't so consistently sad and misinformed, and, dare I add, often intentionally misleading, JFNA's frequent LEADERSHIP BRIEFINGS would be a source of constant amusement.

Thus, the one on April 4 -- EVOLVING STRATEGIES AT JFNA. Talking about "taking on several key new initiatives, the BRIEFING states: "...including the Israel Action Network, which is designed to help communities strategically advocate for Israel and to counter anti-Israel delegitimization efforts..." Of course the IAN was last year's federation-driven BDS effort -- the problem was that the federations failed in the main to financially support the effort and those which were have demanded that JFNA assume a more than substantial portion of the cost.

Then the BRIEFING cites "...the Secure Community Network, which provides real-time security monitoring and security support to communities..." as if the SCN were some new initiative. Begun during the period that Steve Hoffman served as JFNA CEO, this, too, is a federation-driven effort that gradually federations chose not to financially support. Again, the federations have demanded that JFNA assume a substantial portion of the cost. This, in JFNA-speak "evolution."

And, finally -- the laugh riot -- "...the Global Planning Table, which with our overseas partners aims to bolster funding and services for global Jewish needs." Why laughable? Follow along. The GPT "planning process" did not involve the "overseas partners" at all...not a whit. JFNA "leaders" intended to present JAFI/JDC with the usual, a fait accompli. Nowhere within the "GPT Plan" as presented at multiple regional "feedback" sessions was there a scintilla of evidence of how the GPT would "...bolster funding and services for Global Jewish needs." It's all smoke and mirrors. JFNA has no competency to accomplish these goals were they in fact the goals of the GPT.

JFNA is adrift...so it just rationalizes...at our cost and for our amusement. "Evolving?" Sure -- to what?

Rwexler

DECISION-MAKING JFNA STYLE

2011-05-15T05:51:00.003-05:00

Decision-making at every communal and national non-profit that I have ever experienced before JFNA has been a collaborative and inclusive process, recognizing, as we have reflected upon before on these pages, that unless there is consensus, there will be deconstruction. Call it non-profit democracy, if you will. Then there's decision-making at the JFNA of today...as Andy Borowitz described another equally astonishing mediocrity, it's craptastic!!

Let me paraphrase a leader in Rochester, New York on that City's now-departed Board of Education chief: "...we had a difficult three years because (his) definition of shared decision-making was to make a decision and then share it with others." Exactly. Decisions at our precious continental organization are being made today by the smallest number of people possible -- and if the Chair had it her way (as she most often does), that smallest number would be...one. This is what happens when you are the smartest person in the room -- but even Thomas Jefferson had to share decision-making in his time.

Take the Global Planning Table "process" (yes, take it, please). When the then pre-formed GPT outcome was shared with the JFNA Executive Committee, it was rejected, with almost unanimity. But, the "decider" (under the Bushian definition) determined not only to ignore the Executive Committee discussions (probably characterizing that "debate" as just another "feedback session" even though the Chair was so off-put that during the Executive Committee deliberations, she attempted to cross-examine the CEO from JFNA's largest Dues-payer to show how much more she knows on the subject than she). The "new compromises" now on the table in the same manner as the pea in a shell game may offer comfort to some but hide the reality that JFNA's leaders persist in the belief that they "know best" as to all things,

Almost all of us know that the more owners/shareholders/members engaged (really engaged) in shared decision-making, the greater engagement and the greater support for the ultimate decisions arising out of that process. JFNA believes in something called "crowd-sourcing" in the jargon of the day -- hearing from multiple voices and choosing what sounds the best, not what is the best. This also should mean that sometimes, the pre-formed decisions of any organization's leaders will have to be set aside. The worst thing that a leader can do is to ignore the will of the membership or shortly the organization will have none.

There is nothing wrong in leaders attempting to forge consensus. What I heard during the JFNA Board meeting presentations on Wednesday demonstrated a desperation totally unbecoming leadership -- misrepresentations of facts, suppression of all facts in contradiction of the Chair's and the CEO's narrative, disregard of arguments presented at "feedback sessions'....and more of the same. This is a leadership so used to getting its way, so demanding of getting its way, that it finds it impossible to engage in fair debate...impossible to understand that an idea that they have may not be acceptable to those who own the organization.

Craptastic, indeed.

Hello?

Rwexler

THE GLOBAL FANTASY TABLE

2011-05-14T05:13:00.000-05:00

As one insightful Commentator wrote:

"Perhaps Richard there is some room for pushback on the full barrel assault of GPT. The combined budget of our two partner agencies exceeds 600 million. The size of this sum alone calls for due diligence and input on our part and greater transparency on their part. Reviewing the programs in the 10 percent buckets and the slick and not so slick PR narratives I a non planner and aging neophyte can fill pages with questions and concerns for both agencies. Does either agency have Planning departments that rival the expertise of a NY or Chicago? (Out of fairness neither does JFNA). Do results oriented foundation find their proposals credible? Both agencies spend fortunes on resource development. Some joint expenditure and collaboration on planning wouldn't hurt."

I, with many of you, listened to and/or participated in the dictation and discussion around the Global Planning Table at the JFNA Board/Delegate Assembly meeting. After listening to the Board Chair's passionate endorsement of the GPT (which she has made up out of whole cloth) and the CEO's jargon-filled suggestion that the GPT will get us "...from where we were to where we have never been," the GPT shall going forward become the GFT -- the Global Fantasy Table.

The GFT began in February 2009 -- at a closing session of a JFNA Board Retreat where less than 100 were in attendance and from which the GFT has just grown as if a consensus supported it. In her impassioned address the Board Chair created a fantasy world -- one in which JFNA has engaged in advocacy for JAFI and JDC core allocations (it hasn't -- and never did) and one in which a $100,000,000 (++) drop in JAFI/Joint core allocations (a figure never mentioned) over the last six years was a function of nothing more than "the economy." Trust me, the only advocacy in which JFNA has engaged over the last six years has been advocacy for the GFT.

Add to this a "small framing Committee" for the GFT of representatives of 8 federations (not counting the home communities of the Chairs), the average core allocation from five of which is 4%...4%. And, no, I am not making this up. In their "imperative presentations," neither Chair nor CEO mentioned the negative feedback at the "Regional" sessions held on the GFT, nor did they comment upon or reference the unanimity of negative feedback from their own Executive Committee. Of course not; that would destroy their narrative and damage the fantasy of the GFT.

Sadly, for these leaders own ends, they continue to misinterpret the JFNA/JAFI/JDC Agreement suggesting that our two partners agreed to a GFT of JFNA's design. This is all part of the Fantasy World that the Chair and CEO have created. And, of course, there is the core fantasy -- that the GFT is not ONAD, that it will be the place to inspire and rebuild the federation system's commitment to the partners and to collective responsibility. Question: how can leaders who neither understand nor have demonstrated support for collective responsibility possibly lead let alone inspire us to these ends?

As I sat and listened to the two (and that's all there were) presentations all I can conclude is that JFNA's Chair and CEO are committed to the GFT as an end, but have no clue as to the means and, worse, not surprising to this writer, they have not listened to any feedback whatsoever that gets in the way of the Chair's demand for a GFT. This is not leadership...it is failureship. These "leaders" believe that their own "BS" -- always a dangerous thing. They can't bring themselves to think of what then end result of a GFT in their image for it will mean -- the same thing that ONAD meant. The past is prologue; and the past is ignored. Bottom line, the GFT is about nothing more than the need on the Chair's part to control all things when she and JFNA have proved that they can control nothing.

Our Commentator's conclusions are correct -- our global system could do with a greater, professional planning effort in a spirit of collaboration. The GFT will as envisioned merely drive our system further from those goals.

Rwexler

THE NEED FOR GREAT JEWISH LEADERS

2011-05-12T14:19:00.002-05:00

Aryeh Rubin is a JTA board member, the managing partner of the Maot Group, and the founder and director of Targum Shlishi. His words below resonate in so many ways and in so many places.

Opinion: In Dire Need of Some Great American Jewish Leaders
May 11, 2011

Aryeh Rubin

"We are living in a troubling and dangerous time -- a time when we need courageous and insightful leaders more than at any point since the Holocaust. We are facing a potentially existential crisis for Israel and, ultimately, I believe, for Jewish people worldwide. Yet our leaders for the most part have not responded in a forceful way.

Those among us who understand what's at stake must light a fire under our current leaders. We also need to rethink the process of how we select our leaders and what we expect of them.

Today, we are experiencing two primary attacks. The Arab/Muslim/ Persian drive to remove Israel as a Jewish state is a fact, as is the very real threat of catastrophe that a nuclear Iran poses to Israel.

The unsettling recent events in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen and rest of the Arab world add to the instability of Israel's neighbors. Increasingly, radical Islamists, who interpret certain edicts of the Koran as instructing them to kill Jews, are directing their vitriol and hateful propaganda not solely at Israel, but at the entire Jewish people.

There is a frightening groundswell of negativity in the Western and Muslim worlds toward Israel and the Jews resulting from a deliberate, pernicious and astonishingly effective international propaganda campaign to delegitimize Israel by portraying it as a colonial implant and oppressive occupier.

Many would agree that Jewish leadership has a poor record when it comes to the perennial problems of Jewish education, assimilation and confronting modernity. Most everyone also would agree that American Jewish leadership during the Holocaust was abysmal.

Why, then, have we ignored the lessons of that era? We certainly have the wherewithal -- we have shown ourselves to be effective change agents and effective leaders in so many spheres outside of the Jewish world, from the media to medicine to the sciences to the arts and humanities. Where is our "Jewish genius?"

Mass assemblies within our communities with the stars of the Israeli lecture circuit and American political leaders might make U.S. Jews feel good, but won't make a difference -- preaching to the converted never does.

But when it comes to exercising serious power to prevent another catastrophe, our leaders have been impotent. They have adhered to an outdated model based on powerlessness despite the fact that, since the founding of the State of Israel, we now have power and a voice that potentially can be heard the world over.

I am not denying that we have an effective group in AIPAC. Paradoxically, however, no Jewish organization has succeeded when it comes to effectively lobbying the Jewish people, motivating the masses to action.

While the Arab leadership funded a well-thought-out campaign to sway the masses in Europe and the left in the United States, and while they endowed chairs on college campuses and then embedded like-minded professors sympathetic to their cause, we were marching at Israel Day parades singing "Am Yisrael Chai."

We are now playing catch-up. We finally realize what has been going on, and have been making belated attempts to fight delegitimization and promote Israel studies on college campuses.

We also must reconsider how we choose our leaders. Our decision-makers today are predominantly consensus-builders drawn from the moneyed class, many of whom are unschooled in Jewish history and ritual, often unappreciative of the mystique and grandeur of our heritage, and lacking a solid grasp of what is most beneficial for the Jewish people and for Israel.

We should choose our leaders with different criteria in mind. They should be people who are independent, creative thinkers and committed doers. They should be people of conviction and vision with the moral courage to rock the boat. We need leadership that is more diverse in terms of age and range of experience.

We are in dire need of such people, including members of the clergy, the academy and the creative community who are connected to core Jewish values, and who have empathy, wisdom and a majestic vision to be part of the power structure. Their collective experience, combined with the acumen of some current leaders, should improve decision-making and lead to better outcomes.

We cannot afford to remain silent. It is up to us to speak up, motivate and strengthen our leadership. That is our homework. Let us hope that there is still time. "

Amen.

Rwexler

THE GPT AND DISBELIEF

2011-05-12T05:15:00.002-05:00

Today, the JFNA Board will "discuss the imperative" of the Global Planning Table.

JFNA and any number of federations seem either not to believe or not care that major mega-philanthropic families have told JFNA and their federation leaders directly that if the GPT moves forward as designed by and for JFNA, their annual campaign gifts will be lost. The unwarranted, undeserved and wholly inappropriate institutional arrogance that presaged this result would, if continued, not only doom the Global Planning Table but the very system to which these philanthropists have devoted their lives and to which their federations have been dedicated. But, knowing the makeup of the JFNA institutional "personality," the organization's "leaders" could care less. There is a lesson in this for all of us.

Because of federation backlash to the "GPT model" placed on the table at a series of "Regional feedback" sessions, the GPT, once proposed as a fait accompli, has now been relegated to the status of "work in progress" to be presented today as undefined and benign. JFNA's leaders had planned to shove this proposal down the federations' throats at the May 12 Board meeting; the "feedback" was so informed and strong, that these "leaders" decided that they would not yet risk deconstructing the system at this moment and, to their credit, took the GPT off the table for the May meeting. (The timeline for the GPT presumed a May approval. Now, it's June.)

Yet, JFNA's leaders still insist that there is some sort of "imperative" (their word) for a GPT of their design, the negative feedback notwithstanding. So they now mask their intent in benign language, by suggesting an artifice that the GPT will not be ONAD even though none of them...not one of them...experienced the waste that ONAD aforrced on JAFI/JDC and institutional jeopardy that the ONAD "process" created. ONAD was ended by the federations; now these JFNA chachams want to revive it under nothing more than another name. Read their own explanations of the "difference" and you will agree -- GPT is ONAD...only not as well thought through.

At a Chicago Federation meeting a few weeks ago, a strong supporter of JFNA observed, about a Chicago agency that receives over $1 million in annual allocations, that as "...we get no bang for the buck, we need to begin defunding." Hmmm, I thought, does this charismatic, enthusiastic, creative and informed leader ever think about the Dues we allocate to JFNA in an obscene amount given the lack of an ROI from that organization in which we have as a community invested not only tens of millions over its lifetime but so much in the way of dashed hopes?

Choosing disbelief is not an option.

Rwexler

JFNA -- THE JARGON MASTERS

2011-05-10T05:07:00.002-05:00

You can't read anything rolling off the presses at 25 Broadway these days without a dictionary. Nothing is as it seems and nothing reads as was intended. We are overwhelmed by jargon and cliche.

Just look at the materials for the May 12 Board of Trustees meeting. Two examples suffice:

~ In her cover Memo, the Board Chair announces "...an extremely robust agenda..." -- what the hell is that? "Strong, healthy, hardy, vigorous?" Can an "agenda" be any of those things? Yes, we could have "robust debate" but that isn't the same thing is it? And that's not what JFNA's leaders want, is it? No, "robust" has now been relegated to jargon, to cliche, to a word without meaning at JFNA.

~ Then, in the Agenda itself. Describing an Agenda matter on the Global Planning Table: "A perspective on the imperative for developing the Global Planning Table, an overview of the issues critical to its success and a discussion on key strategic questions." And, just whose "perspective" is that? So far, from discussions with men and women who attended "feedback" ("they should have been called 'spoonfeed' sessions" one said) sessions, the one word, among many, that JFNA has never heard has been "imperative." Why? Because "imperative" means "absolutely necessary or required; unavoidable." Perhaps, in the jargon of JFNA, the noun definition applies -- "a command." The monarchy dictates the command and we are required to have a GPT. So, as I read the Agenda, someone or ones will tell us why we must have a GPT, this GPT and the "feedback" (almost completely negative)...ignored. That's the imperative.

~ The Global Planning Table materials for the JFNA Board Meeting distributed by e-mail from the Board Chair yesterday -- and asking for comments, if any, to be sent to her -- are now so parve as to suggest that the GPT will be totally benign. Second Membership Criterion as a condition of participation -- not even a mention (just an aside that a collective allocation will be a requirement of participation). Hidden behind the jargon remains the basic deconstruction of the collective system that has ennobled the federation system. It remains clear that this leadership still has no clue what "collective responsibility" means. Those who participated in the so-called "Feedback sessions" were told that minutes were being taken of each such session -- why not distribute those?

Oh, yes, the Agenda indicates that the Board will appropriately honor the outgoing Chairs of Young Leadership and the National Campaign Chair (who at some point agreed that we are no longer in the "Campaign business" -- we are in something called, in JFNA jargon, Philanthropic Resources).

Rwexler

CATCHING UP...YET AGAIN

2011-05-09T05:22:00.001-05:00

~ Is there a major federation out there that is now "counting" funds raised by Birthright for Birthright within its federation geographic limits as part of its Annual Campaign statistics? And does the amount approach or exceed $2 million? Just how does that work? The federation didn't raise the money; the federation didn't allocate the money; the federation just counts the money as if it did both? Do lay leaders who actually sacrifice to make their pledges to the federation actually believe this legerdemain? I'm thinking: isn't this exactly what JFNA does? In both instances, taking credit for the money is a lot easier than raising it, isn't it?

~ I don't wish to brag or anything, but, why not? I read the JFNA 2010 Annual Report (always a hyperbolic laugh riot) and realized, once again, the incredible contribution my federation, Chicago, has played in framing so many of the very few JFNA Programs for which that organization claims credit: the National Jewish Federation Bond Program, the Secure Community Network (patterned after a Chicago initiative), the Israel Action Network to fight BDS, among others. It makes one scratch one's head and ask "why" Chicago lay and/or professional leaders were excluded from the "small internal committee" that framed the fiasco that is the Global Planning Table "process" (while representatives of communities which have objected to JFNA Dues were). Then again...

~ You aren't supposed to know this -- JFNA's "leaders" have disclosed to the Budget & Finance Committee, among other things, the following unfavorable variances to Budget projected through the end of the Fiscal Year: a $182,000 over-expenditure in travel, a $253,000 shortfall from the New Orleans GA, another $275,000 overage from the Lion of Judah Conference, and, of course, a $253,000 loss on the historic TribeFest -- all of this in addition to Dues shortfalls estimated at close to another quarter of a million dollars. But, fear not, for the Budget also included a $400,000 "Contingency" (one insider told me that JFNA "...has no Budget reserve" -- OK, what's this $400,000 [that will increase to $600,000 next year?]) Or, fear....the non-payment of Dues keeps increasing -- an accrued $465,000 and another $489,000 in 2010-2011 -- that's close to $1,000,000 in unpaid Dues. And, what's the nonpayment estimated for 2011-2012? Another $471,000. And what are JFNA's "leaders" doing about all of this? JFNA promises to raise money independently to support its Budget in 2011-2012 in violation of every principle of a funded membership organzation. Oh, and all of this is allegedly "confidential." Crazy.

~ Not so crazy. JFNA's few "leaders," in a desperate attempt to keep the GPT alive in some form, have reached out to a few lay persons in communities which have objected to the Table as designed, seeking their support, arguing "save us from ourselves," or similar. They have found a few willing, perhaps with reluctance, perhaps not, to support "compromise," apparently willing to put their "future" in leadership of JFNA above not just principle but their communities' historic commitment to collective responsibility and the timeless principles upon which our system has been built. Sh'lom bayit trumps principle and our communal values? Funny, in a way -- these communal leaders are being influenced by those who never understood that responsibility or those principles -- and sad.

Rwexler

A DISAGREEMENT WITH RESPECT

2011-05-06T05:33:00.000-05:00

I often exchange substantive correspondence with a terrific federation CEO for whom I have the greatest respect. Most recently, just before Pesach, we engaged in an internal "debate" over the "value" of the GPT, his view, or the lack thereof, mine. Our discussion won't be repeated here (except in part below), but trust me when I write that it was executed with mutual respect -- something that is unknown, unfortunately, to JFNA's lay leaders these past six years.

As we closed our discussion, here is what this leader wrote: "Richard -- one final note. This exchange we've had should be occurring at the highest levels of JFNA, with multiple federations across the country and with our next gen leaders -- the national conversation that Steve Windmueller and others have suggested. If it were, a lot of these issues would have been resolved and we'd be talking about less mundane matters, like whether you like your matzo balls firm or fluffy..." I responded with my 100% agreement (and, N.B., "that I like mine firm with a bit of fluffy").

But, our leaders deride debate; they abhor debate; debate conflicts too often with their narrative, their opinion and their "facts." To me, debate is a building block to consensus; to JFNA's leaders, consensus is what they say it is on any given day. These "leaders" fail to comprehend that their dictatorial methodology -- one that shuts out all questions and all debate until now -- has placed the institution that we created and that we, the federations, own, at the very precipice of a disaster from which it is likely it will not recover.

Rwexler

AN EXPERT'S VIEW OF THE GLOBAL PLANNING TABLE

2011-05-03T05:18:00.001-05:00

As regular readers know I frequently receive an opinion piece from readers so insightful and spot on as to merit inclusion as a Post. What follows came "over the transom" from a highly respected national leader who has reviewed the Global Planning Table proposals from the first presentations through the "feedback sessions" to today. Her/his analysis follows:

"Dear Richard:

Despite the enormous expenditure within the JFNA budget to support the Israel and Overseas professional efforts, the sophistication of the allocations departments of federations such as New York, Chicago, Baltimore, etc. far outstrip the technical expertise resident in JFNA. These federation departments understand that building innovative programs require strong partnership predicated upon trust, predictability of funding, and most importantly directed towards providing solutions for resonating Jewish needs.

The many weaknesses associated with the Global Planning Table concept are too numerous to describe in one e-mail, but I want to point out a few.

1. Sophisticated federations will not want to cede 'hard to raise' donor funds to a national organization that serves no real purpose other than to reallocate funds to those organizations that the small group of leaders feels are more important than the historic federation partners, JDC and JAFI. These federations already have the option to do so without forwarding the funds to JFNA and support what probably will be another layer of overhead/cost.

2. Over the last 15 years, while federation allocations to JAFI/JDC/Israel have declined, Israeli institutions have successfully raised enormous dollars outside the federation system. The federation market share decline in terms of overseas funding is stunning, at the very least. And that was one of the basic reasons for the merger of UJA/CJF. The planning table does not address the notion of market share in the least but rather establishes a bureaucratic response with no fundraising drivers. Yet the above mentioned federations have, for the most part, fashioned their own solution set that has resulted in increased overseas allocations and increased federation annual campaigns by old fashioned needs based fundraising that relies on the programs of JAFI/JDC. That's their plan and it is working.

3. There are no revenue projections attached to the formation of the Global Planning Table initiative. In other words, there is no accountability or measurement for success. Clearly, this would require a level of decisiveness and justification that has been absent at the national level. Yet, most federation boards would never approve any expenditure or allocation without a cost/benefit analysis. The risks are too great.

4. Squandering resources in the not for profit world takes on many shapes. The sheer amount of lay leadership resources, time and money, that was wasted on the ONAD process will never be recovered. This doesn't even address the amount of money spent by JDC and JAFI to defend their allocations during the same period. It's as if the professional/lay leadership has collective amnesia.

The template for needs assessment already exists within the board rooms of JDC and JAFI. Top lay leadership from a broad cross section of North American federations already sit around the JAFI and JDC tables and debate resource allocations and challenges facing the Jewish people while never forgetting their fiduciary responsibilities. The officers and many of the JFNA Board members participate on a regular basis in decision making in both JAFI and JDC. The Global Planning Table creates an institutional redundancy without an articulated financial goal. Does this make sense?"

My/our thanks. As always, my fear is that no "leader" at JFNA, if they would read this analysis, will understand it.

Rwexler

LETTER TO JERRY...AGAIN

2011-05-02T08:12:00.002-05:00

Although a technically competent reader was able to translate the final paragraphs of my "Letter to Jerry" Post yesterday (See Comments), I am trying again:

Dear Jerry,

As you have told me, you don't read this Blog (why ruin an otherwise good day?) unless someone brings it to your attention. My hope is that either one of your staff will forward this Post to you or that, through some inadvertent, unconscious act, you will come upon it yourself.

I don't ask that you read any prior Posts, Jerry, that would be too much to expect. What I would ask you to read would be the Comments (almost all Anonymous) because there are lessons to be learned from men and women far more articulate and on point than I. These Comments suggest that JFNA is floundering, Jerry, awash in trivial pursuits while federations and donors and the Next Generations of our leaders want substance and relevance instead of pandering and patronizing. I have heard that you want to bring to your staff the best and brightest who, hopefully, will make of JFNA a laboratory for new ideas and bold experiments. Yet, I haven't seen a single example in the past few months of even one such hire while JFNA is threatened with a brain drain in its most critical areas of need. You have visited, at last count, 78(+) federations and I applaud you for those visits and for the connections you have made with the owners and a few major donors. Yet, what are you doing in response to their asks of JFNA? What are the messages you have brought back to 25 Broadway? If the messages are that the federations want more #ish, more Heroes, more TribeFest and more Sheatufim and less FRD help, less direct intervention, less infusion of the federations with the best practices of others, then I would submit to you that you haven't been listening at all.

I know of your respect for Les Wexner and the counsel you have taken from him -- often reduced to the mantra "...what got us here won't get us there." I would subscribe to the same counsel, Jerry, but first isn't it mandatory to know "what got us here," the great, the good, the bad? I don't believe, with Itzik Shavit, z"l, gone, there is a single person, lay or professional, among JFNA's extremely constricted leadership, who has a clue as to what the core values and timeless principles upon which the federation system (and, for the matter, JFNA at its beginning) was built. Instead, you and your lay leaders have gone about building something "new" based upon marketing and branding -- you can't build a firm foundation on a slippery slope, my friend.

A few weeks ago The New York Times profiled Howard Schultz in its Sunday Business Section -- "A Changed Starbucks, A Changed CEO." There is much in that article that is as instructive as have been your meetings and discussions with Wexner. For example:

~ "His goals (for what Schultz called a "transformational agenda") were to fix troubled stores, to rekindle an emotional attachment with customers and to make longer term changes like reorganizing executives..."

~ The company's CFO said that "[W]hat the company needed then was what he used to be to us -- the innovator, the refusal to not be a champion."

~ The CFO continued: "Delegating and accepting other people's conclusions, is now easier for him. 'There's been more arguing, challenging and debate in the last two to three years than there's ever been.'"

~ Schultz: "What leadership means is the courage it takes to talk about things that, in the past, perhaps we wouldn't have, because I'm not right all of the time." Hello!!!

~ A keen observer of the company concluded: "[T]here's a kind of dissonance between the messaging and the actual practice." Hello and hello, again.

There are some things I know you can do. The first of which might be to stop playing to the crowd -- telling 'em what you think they want to hear. For example, at a meeting in Dallas a few weeks ago you found a good applause line -- "...we need to find a new way to connect with Israel." Sounds great, apparently...but only to communities that don't "connect" through Missions, through JAFI and the Joint, through Birthright, through the IAI and the IAN, through multiple existing portals. Do you even realize the insecurity statements like these can create among those you and the Board Chair often call "partners?" Do you even care at this point? Or is it all about patronizing and pandering, full of sound and fury (and cliche), signifying nothing?

What you may have meant is that "we," whoever "we" are ("you're not JFNA") need to find a way to connect period -- and "we" will, through the GPT??!! It's truly sad that you apparently place no value on our real, working connections, no connections with the bridges we have built and continue to.

You know that I love your optimism. To realize upon that will require that you demand a lay leadership that understands the needs of our federations and then that you quietly advise your lay leadership that responding to those needs is what JFNA must be about. For the past six years we have seen JFNA leaders whose pursuit of their personal agendas and vendettas threaten the very existence of JFNA itself. You have to surround yourself with a new set of lay leaders who, with the support of the federation CEOs can lead JFNA out of
the darkness in into the light.

You can this. Can't you?

Warmest regards,

Richard

WITH APOLOGIES

2011-05-01T14:13:00.003-05:00

My apologies that the letter to Jerry Post first had a font issue and, then, though it appears perfectly in Edit mode, I am unable to publish the full Post. I will publish that Post in full toimorrow.

DEAR JERRY...

2011-05-01T05:27:00.009-05:00

Dear Jerry,

As you have told me, you don't read this Blog (why ruin an otherwise good day?) unless someone brings it to your attention. My hope is that either one of your staff will forward this Post to you or that, through some inadvertent, unconscious act, you will come upon it yourself.

I don't ask that you read any prior Posts, Jerry, that would be too much to expect. What I would ask you to read would be the Comments (almost all Anonymous) because there are lessons to be learned from men and women far more articulate and on point than I. These Comments suggest that JFNA is floundering, Jerry, awash in trivial pursuits while federations and donors and the Next Generations of our leaders want substance and relevance instead of pandering and patronizing. I have heard that you want to bring onto your staff the best and brightest who, hopefully, will make of JFNA a laboratory for new ideas and bold experiments. Yet, I haven't seen a single example in the past few months of even one such hire while JFNA is threatened with a brain drain in its most critical areas of need. You have visited, at last count, 78 (+) federations and I applaud you for those visits and for the connections you have made with the owners and with a few major donors. Yet, what are you doing in response to their asks of JFNA? What are the messages you have brought back to 25 Broadway? If the messages are that the federations want more #ish, more Heroes, more TribeFest, more Sheatufim and less FRD help, less direct intervention, less infusion of the federations with the best practices of others. then I would submit to you that you haven't been listening at all.

I know of your respect for Les Wexner and the counsel which you have taken from him -- often reduced to the mantra "what got us here, won't get us there." I would subscribe to the same counsel, Jerry, but first isn't it mandatory to know "what got us here," the great, the good, the bad? I don't believe, with Itzik Shavit, z'l, gone, there is a person, lay or professional, among JFNA's narrowly constricted leadership, who has a clue as to what the core values and timeless principles upon which the federation system (and, for that matter, JFNA at the beginning) was built. Instead, you and your lay leaders have gone about building something "new" based on marketing and branding -- you can't build a firm foundation on a slippery slope, my friend.

A few weeks ago The New York Times profiled Howard Schultz in its Sunday Business Section -- "A Changed Starbucks, A Changed CEO." There is much in that article that is as instructive as have been your meetings and discussions with Wexner. For example:

~ "His goals(for what Schultz called a "transformational agenda") were to fix troubled stores, to rekindle an emotional attachment with customers and to make longer term changes like reorganizing executives..."

~ The company's CFO said that "[W]hat the company needed then was what he used to be to us -- the innovator, the refusal to not be a champion."

~ The CFO continued: "Delegating and accepting other people's conclusions, is now easier for him. 'There's been more arguing, challenging and debate in the last two to three years than there's ever been.'"

~ Schultz: "What leadership means is the courage it takes ti talk about things that, in the past, perhaps we wouldn't have, because I'm not right all of the time." Hello!!!

~ A keen observer of the company concluded "[T]here's a kind of dissonance between the messaging and the actual practice." Hello and hello, again.

There are some things I know you can do. The first of which might be to stop playing to the crowd -- telling 'em what you think they want to hear. For example, at a meeting in Dallas a few weeks ago you found a good applause line -- "...we need to find a new way to connect with Israel." Sounds great, apparently...but only to communities that don't "connect" through Missions, through JAFI and the Joint, through Birthright, through the IAI and the IAN, through multiple portals. Do you even realize the insecurity statements like thses can create among those you and the Board Chair often call "partners?" Do you care at this point? Or is this all about patroninzing and pandering, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?

What you may have meant is that "we," whoever "we" are ( "you're not JFNA") need to find a way to connect period -- and "we" will, through the GPT??!! It's truly sad that you apparently place no value on on our real, our working connections, no connections with the bridges we have built and continue to.

You know that I love your optimism. To realize upon that will require that you demand a lay leadership that understands the needs of our federations and then that you quietly advise your lay leadership that responding to those needs is what JFNA must be about. For the past six years we have seen JFNA too often pursue the personal agendas of a small group of misguided lay leaders whose pursuit of their personal agendas and vendettas threaten the very existence of JFNA itself. You have to surround yourself with a new set of lay leaders who, with the support of the federation CEOs can lead JFNA out of the darkness into the light.

You can do this. Can't you?

Warmest regards,

Richard

THE OVERSEAS RED HERRING

2011-04-28T05:50:00.001-05:00

Friends, a basic premise underlying the "rationale" for a JFNA kidnapping of the Israel and overseas allocations is that "...federations will no longer support a percentage split in core allocations decided by JAFI and the Joint." And this "argument" is as specious as is almost everything associated with the current Global Planning Table "plan." Yes, JAFI and the Joint have in place an expired agreement pursuant to which core allocations would be divided between them according to a 75/25 ratio. But, the reality, which JFNA leaders find convenient to totally ignore, is that at least a plurality if not a majority of federations, while continuing to support JAFI/Joint core, have, more and more and more, moved their dollars away from core to designated projects of both partner organizations -- while reducing their allocations to both organizations for all purposes by over $100 million.

In fact, after years of arguing that "the market" should drive allocations, it is doing just that. But...and this is "But" with a capital "B"...that isn't what the small group of leaders who have determined that we need a GPT want or demand. They do not want the market to drive decisions...or the federations; this small group wants JFNA to drive those decisions (under the guise of federations doing so). And, to that end, they ignore the consequences -- to the federation owners, to JAFI and JDC (and, for that matter, the national agencies whose expenditures they also want to control through this "process"), and to JFNA itself.

It's institutional insanity, but JFNA appears wholly willing to throw itself in front of the bus that it is driving. Why? Because it must control all things even as it has demonstrated time and again that it is incapable of executing in almost any activity. Control...for its own sake. Control...to give JFNA a reason for being. JFNA's leaders are already aware that pursuing this "plan" for the GPT will cost it the support of some of its most critical member federations...among them those that have for 11 years provided unquestioning total support. And, yet, these "leaders" continue down a path of self-destruction.

It's all so sad.

Rwexler

THE PORTLAND COLLABORATION MODEL

2011-04-26T05:05:00.001-05:00

When I commented negatively on the Los Angeles federation's "brilliant" idea of doling out a $100,000 prize to THE BEST NEW JEWISH IDEA, I also noted that the Portland Jewish Federation was offering a $300,000 grant for innovative programming. From the LA CEO, whose innovation and persona I admire, I received an intemperate response telling me to "be ashamed" and offering, in aggressive language a statistical defense that I offered to print if that CEO would provide some back-up (to which I received an even nastier response -- but no back-up). I also received an e-mail from Marc Blattner, the Portland CEO, which I wanted to share with you:

"Let me provide you with some background information:

The purpose of our Community Impact Grants is to change the thinking of our partner agencies and our Jewish community as a whole. The past history has been institutions not working collaboratively (these grants are forcing collaboration) and new ideas were not coming to the table. Federation can no longer be the 'budget deficit filler.' We must find ways to create new and exciting programs to meet tomorrow's needs and not solely on yesterday's budget woes.

We are excited that we have received dozens of phone calls from organizations around the world interested in trying new initiatives in Portland...I truly believe our community can be the 'test market' for Jewish America, so why not start new ideas here. Any 501c3 is eligible as long as they partner with a Jewish organization on the ground in Portland. This has opened the doors to new people and new organizations bringing ideas to the table. I am confident we will get incredible proposals with many ideas not thought about in Portland before.

In regard to your comment about funding, and where will that $300,000 come out of. Well, our intent is to not have it come out of anywhere. We have raised an additional $132,000 in special gifts to help go toward the $300,000 (...over and above annual campaign contributions) -- with more 'asks' outstanding, and our campaign is currently up this year. Donors are excited about the potential for these new initiatives. In the end, we may see a small decrease in our typical agency allocations (not expected to impact overseas allocations at all), yet more dollars will be going into the community (local and overseas) in the end. We have explained, and our agency partners agree, that this may be a 'small short term loss for a larger long-term communal gain.' In addition, many of our partners may, in fact, receive even more money than they would have through a regular allocation cycle due to the extra funding for new (collaborative) projects.

Portland is still a community that provides 'block grants' to its agencies and does not allocate based on specific programs. We believe this helps to maintain the system as a whole.

It is important to note that unlike larger Jewish communities, Portland does not have scores of major donors, nor does it have hundreds of millions in endowments and donor-advised funds. We do have a passionate donor base that is seeking to maintain our quality services while also realizing the Jewish world continues to evolve and we must change with it."

LA CA and Portland OR. Contrast and compare. Remember the era of "best practices" -- when JFNA actually knew what was going on in the field?

Rwexler

THE ROYAL WEDDINGS AND ME

2011-04-25T05:12:00.001-05:00

Way back when, I received a hand delivered envelope addressed to "The Honorable Richard Wexler, National Chairman, The United Jewish Appeal." The envelope was 8 x 12, at the least, with extremely impressive calligraphy. I ripped it open only to be shocked -- it contained an invitation to the Royal Wedding of Prince Charles and Diana. When I collected myself, I called Bernie Moscovitz, UJA's CEO, to inquire whether we could assign this invitation to a mega-donor. Bernie checked and we couldn't. So, after purchasing something called "tails," off I went to represent the UJA at this incredible set of events. Wow, it was so awesome to be in the presence of a Queen, and Prince "Call me Charlie" Charles. I was speechless in their presence and overcome with just the joy of being there. What a highlight in a life of them. So imagine my shock when I responded to a pounding on my front door last week only to discover a gentleman in livery holding an 8 x 12 envelope addressed to "The Honorable Richard Wexler, National Chair, United Jewish Appeal." The delivery man said: "Mr. Wexler, we have had a heck of time finding you. What happened to the United Jewish Appeal; and what happened to you? We were fearful you were dead and buried." "Long, long, sad story, I'm not dead but I have been buried" I replied, thanking the gentleman for finding me. I ripped open the envelope and found an invitation to Prince William and Kate's Wedding. My first thought was that this was a major error -- if anyone, this invitation should have gone to Kathy Manning, JFNA Board Chair. After all, whenever there is a White House event, it is she who attends in awe and silence. Then, I thought, "what the hell. I still have the 'tails.' the thing is addressed to me; I'm going." And then I thought about it: JFNA is now in the party business, almost exclusively; someone from JFNA should go, take notes and build a better TribeFest. And JFNA has constructed a monarchy -- or, at the least, a self-perpetuating oligarchy. I have sent the invite on to Jerry -- he'll figure it out. Rwexler

CONSENSUS

2011-04-22T05:37:00.002-05:00

As a public service I offer a definition of "consensus decision-making" for us all: "...a group decision-making process that seeks not only the agreement of most participants but also the elimination or mitigation of minority participants..." Easy to define, right? But under certain circumstances difficult to achieve. Our federation "system" is totally dependent upon "consensus decision making" -- without that, my friends, the system fails. I bring all of this to your attention because in the context of the so-called JFNA Global Planning Table (a/k/a the Global Dictation Table) it suddenly struck me that not only don't lay or professional leaders know how to build consensus, they don't even know what "building consensus" means. After all, certainly on the lay side, our "leaders" believe they can merely wave a magic wand, declare "we have consensus" and march forward, ignoring all reality. (In fact, that is how the GPT "concept" was formed -- at the very end of a poorly attended JFNA inter Board Retreat [less than 1/3rd of the federations were present], the GPT "concept" was discussed -- very briefly and in bare outline form. The current Board Chair, then the Chair of the Executive, declared a "consensus" and marched the concept forward as if it had been approved [there was no vote] and as if it were now Torah.) The JFNA Executive Committee met on April 13. The feedback in response to the GPT "straw man" presentation were, as I have learned, so uniformly negative, the paid consultant complained that the Executive Committee was excessively "conservative" and the opinions of "San Francisco, Philadelphia, Dallas and Houston" weren't being heard. To my knowledge, the consultant formed no focus groups and, based on the presentation in Chicago, cited anecdotes as data and continued to ignore feedback that conflicted with the preformed judgments that are at the basis of the JFNA plan for the GPT. In fact, if the reaction of federation lay and professional leaders serving on the JFNA Executive was as I have heard, there was a very strong consensus against the GPT as presented. Those who have led federations or national organizations should have learned from the examples of others and through their own efforts the craft of "consensus building" -- it is Federation Leadership 101. Sometimes as leaders we aren't able to build a consensus no matter the effort put in. But, in the instance of the GPT, there appeared and appears to be no such effort. The Chair apparently believed that as the paradigm was based in part on New York UJA-Federation's successful "Commission Model," that extending that "model" continent-wide would be readily supported. What she and her claque didn't appreciate was that New York used its model, among other things, to increase the unrestricted core allocations to our partners, JAFI and JDC; whereas, the JFNA GPT was clearly designed, as disclosed to the JFNA Executive, to be the "...central decision-making body for all allocations." A micro-management body if you will. That's not what New York had created. The questions now are -- were JFNA's lay and professional leaders paying attention at the Executive Committee or have they so convinced themselves of the holiness of their own preformed conclusions that they will bring the Global Planning Table process as outlined forward as if there had been no objection to it? It would not surprise me if some surface attempt were made to respond to those Federations who have expressed opposition as a matter of principle, then a shrug of the shoulders, a "well, we tried but they are impossible" and then a vote as early as the May Board meeting. And that would bring our system down, pure and simple. As I have written before, these leaders, if they so proceed, will have to look themselves in the mirror and answer whether their actions in deconstructing our national system can ever be excused. Rwexler

CATCHING UP...AGAIN

2011-04-19T05:11:00.011-05:00

~ The LA Federation CEO, Jay Sanderson, objected with virulence to that section of my Post last month suggesting that I didn't know the success of the Greatest New Jewish Idea. After stating that I ought to be "ashamed," he continued pointing to the great achievementof the $100,000 effort. When I advised that if he sent me the back-up to support his claim that 100,000 votes had been cast and 50,000 new e-mail addresses added to the Federation contact list, I apparently further enraged him. For more on Mr. Sanderson read the very entertaining and illuminating article in The Los Angeles Jewish Journal -- Jay Sanderson Pushes for Change But Some Lose Heart in Light of His Leadership Service -- http://www.jewishjournal.com/cover_story/article/jay_sanderson_pushes_for_change_but_some_lose_heart_in_the_face_of _his_lead/ (More to follow on the Portland response...) And, a week later, the enthusiastic letters which, in the main, applaud the CEO's performance and come from just whom you would expect. ~ My, my, my, the Blog has finally made it!!! Yes, I made The Jerry Silverman JFNA Daily Media Guide. Here's how: On March 17, Jerry was still ferreting out congratulatory stories on the Festivus (which by the way continues). Thinking he had found one in The Jewish Week, he linked to it and, lo and behold (but surely unknown to the five or six people at JFNA who cull world media to find articles) right there in the article was a link to the Blog. Heads will no doubt roll at 25 Broadway (Oh, wait, unrelated, heads are, unfortunately, already "rolling.") but I can't thank Jerry enough. ~ You may not remember the Conversion Crisis initiated by the so-called Rotem Legislation introduced in the Knesset last year as a bill favorable to recognizing, in the main, conversions of Russian Jews in Israel, then amended to reflect only the conversions conducted or approved by the rigid Orthodox Rabbinate. Jerry Silverman spun like a top while in Jerusalem and, eventually, left matters in the hands of Natan Sharansky who had been designated by the Prime Minister to negotiate an acceptable compromise. Then, two months ago, while in Jerusalem on other matters, Silverman and Manning decided they would confront the Interior Minister with no notice to Sharansky. The results -- no so good. JFNA has now once again stuck its collective head in the sand while the Chief Sephardi Rabbi has been advised by a committee of rabbis he appointed recommended termination of the JAFI-driven IDF partnership in Nativ -- a conversion course that has produced significant positive results. Why? Well Sephardi Chief Rabbi's rabbinic committee found that Reform and Conservative teachers serve on the staff of Nativ. 4500 conversions have taken place under Nativ auspices; their validity had been approved by the Sephardi Chief Rabbi as recently as January 2011. I guess JFNA's silence is fed by the reality that neither Silverman nor Manning happens to be in Israel on other business. ~ Irony. I read a News flash from JFNA that the Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta retained "the Mandel Center for Leadership Excellence of the Jewish Federations of North America" to conduct its search for a new President/CEO. If I recall correctly, the DC Federation had engaged the self-same to search for its new CEO, tired of the futility, hired a headhunter who searched and, ta-da-da-da-duh-duh, found the Atlanta CEO for D.C. Maybe this is not ironic after all; something else ~ It was recently reported in YNet that every South Korean home has a Talmud, the Koreans believing that "...Jews are geniuses" and that if we are our genius comes from our sacred texts. WOW! Chag Pesach Sameach to you all. Rwexler

TABLE FOR ONE, MADAM?

2011-04-16T05:45:00.002-05:00

I had lunch with a great professional when I visited Los Angeles a while back -- one with a great memory. He reminded me that back in 2001, in the first years of JFNA, the aggregate of federation annual campaigns was $826,000,000; and federation allocations to JAFI and JDC core activities were $272,000,000. Last year, the aggregate of annual campaigns totalled about $800,000,000 and those same allocations to our partners' core budgets had shrunk by more than $100,000,000.

This has been a horrifying outcome of a merger a core purpose of which was to increase the resources of our Israel and overseas partners. And, what's worse? JFNA has allowed itself to become the captive of those whose ignorance of the past is only exceeded by their disinterest in these failures. Both of these realities are compounded by the policies our leaders propound while the system collapses around them. They are distracted by the trivial -- by areas of "investment" that defy reason. Then you've got those who clearly support a "strong national system" in word but not in deed.

You want a "strong national system?" Really? Then, damn it, do something about the one we have. Yeah, that's hard work, the hardest, but if not now, when? After Humpty Dumpty falls, the pieces will be impossible to put back together...impossible. There is no one -- no one in the federation system and certainly no one at 25 Broadway or within the lay leadership of JFNA examining looking at the big picture, looking at how JFNA can be relevant to the federations. One of my friends, involved in federation and national Jewish life for quite a while, has characterized JFNA as fatally "self-absorbed." It has no purpose beyond itself. While self-absorption might be OK for an individual, it is a fatal flaw in a communal institution. Thus, JFNA leaders are quite comfortable in rejecting participation in any number of things by those they characterize as "not JFNA;" equally comfortable in their creating programs that waste piles of money that could be devoted to communal needs on programs and projects and parties that at most get JFNA's "brand" out there (as if that has some importance to the owners attached to it); and create "product" the sole discernible purpose of which is to arrogate unto themselves greater power; and, as is evident, these leaders lack any ability to articulate "purpose" aligned with the federations.

The system is in free fall.

Rwexler

CATCHING UP....SOME MORE

2011-04-15T05:46:00.000-05:00

~ In the category of unbelievable but true --At its Executive Committee meeting this week, JFNA "leaders" indicated that $30.3 million in Dues just ain't gonna be enough for 2011-2012, and as they anticipate some non-payment of Dues as well, they plan to engage in direct fund raising...get it, they think they will be able to reach out to donors directly (one might call that competitive FRD might one, with the very federations that provide the $30.3 million?). My suggestion, a federation-driven Owners Planning Table to control all funds and JFNA's FRD>

~ Some federations never cease to amaze. One of our largest has determined that it won't support an annual and historic grant to the community's Annual Israel Festival. That would have been $20,000. While the event has annually drawn about 10,000 people, the federation called it a "local event" in ending its annual support.Yet that same community can afford a $100,000 reward for the Next Great Big Jewish Idea. Priorities, values? As of right now, the Israel Festival has been canceled.

~ On April 11 I attended a beautiful Memorial Service in New York City honoring the life and works of Yitzchak Shavit, z'l. Each speaker's memory was beautifully done and fully evocative of Itzik's life of commitment and compassion. So many lay leaders were present to remember Itzik -- old friends and partners; even more so, hundreds of the professionals who worked side-by-side with that great and inspiring leader were there. It was so wonderful to see so many of them once again. So many wonderful memories for all of us. Too bad that JFNA's lay leaders couldn't find the time to be there.

~ At that epic JFNA Executive Committee meeting on April 13, where the federation owners stood up and asserted themselves, Michael Lebovitz, the Chattanooga leader who has quietly served as National Philanthropic Resources Chair these past couple of years, announced that TribeFest was such a success that TribeFest II is already being planned. Wow, with even more advance planning than the original, certainly JFNA can lose far more than $250,000 (before including staff overhead or travel) on an event that was at its essence but a further expensive example of JFNA's total self-absorption.

Rwexler

IT'S GAME OVER!!

2011-04-13T05:35:00.004-05:00

Several months ago, after listening carefully to the JFNA "leaders" answers to the federations' wholly appropriate questions during the January Board Retreat, I concluded, as I then wrote, that JFNA would use the so-called "Global Planning Table process" to ultimately destroy the collective system that the federations had constructed over the past 50 years. My fear was that I would be proved correct; my fears have been realized. As now contemplated, an organization -- JFNA -- so inept that its accomplishments over its 11 years of existence can be counted on the fingers of one hand while spending $600 million of our communal, our donors', dollars would be entrusted with determining how and for what purposes our dollars are spent in Israel, around the world and, now, as I understand it, nationally and continentally. It is evident that the leaders of JFNA, out of either ignorance or their apparent need to control all things, are willing to put the federation enterprise at risk to accomplish goals only they have set. Let me explain... The idea of a Global Planning Table was formulated in the fertile mind of the current Board Chair in consultation with her predecessor, pushed at a February 2009 Florida Board Retreat attended by less than 1/3 of the federation population at best and never voted upon there. From that false premise that there was some form of imaginary "consensus," the Board Chair, as is her style, determined that she had carte blanche to impose a JFNA-controlled allocations system on the federations, the JDC and JAFI. And, don't kid yourselves, it is this leadership's construct that JFNA (and only JFNA) is to control all overseas and national allocations to our once-cherished partners and national agencies. Ignore the reality that JFNA has no competency...none...to execute these responsibilities if JAFI, JDC and the national agencies acquiesce; this is all about control...it is only about control without regard for the deconstruction of our communal fiber this power grab will wreak. Chevre, Our federation system is about trust -- trust of the donor in the federation, trust of the federations in our partners and our national organization, and the mutual trust of the system's historic partners -- JDC/JAFI -- in the federations/JFNA as the reverse. That trust of JAFI/Joint in the national organization has broken down almost completely -- and with reason. Today, JFNA's hand-picked consultant, Board Chair and CEO are making the argument that the GPT must be implemented as they dictate because federations will no longer make large unrestricted allocations to the JDC/JAFI. Yet, JFNA for the last 6 years engaged in not a bit of advocacy for the Partners' core allocations. The organization leadership's argument for the GPT is comparable on all fours with the tale of the child who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy because he is now an orphan. The current situation, if JFNA's premise is correct, is the direct result of JFNA's abandonment of its historic responsibility, mandated in the Merger Agreement which created it and embodied in the JFNA/JAFI/JDC Agreement reached less than 6 months ago, which JFNA is clearly willing to breach in exchange for the control it now demands. Yes, in November 2010, after lengthy negotiations between the Board Chair/JFNA, JAFI and JDC, in which Manning was the sole lay participant for JFNA, thanks to Cleveland's Steve Hoffman's "shuttle diplomacy," an agreement was reached premised on 4 co-equal legs: the GPT, JFNA's commitment to a Second JFNA Membership criterion based upon federations' allocations to JAFI/Joint core, the implementation of aJDC/JAFI/JFNA advocacy program, and a common commitment to FRD, branding and marketing. The good faith that characterized those negotiations and were embodied in the agreement was immediately breached by JFNA's unilateral (and obsessive) pursuit of the GPT to the exclusion of the other mandated areas of activity and the willful exclusion of JAFI and JDC through this date, and the pursuit of the GPT with a clear bent toward the deconstruction of the core allocations -- the absolute opposite of the promise and intent of the Agreement. (In fact, it has become clear that the application of such core allocations as may remain upon the GPT going operational will be determined by the GPT, not by UIA, JAFI or the Joint.) The pursuit of the GPC is such an obsession that the 2012 JFNA Budget to be approved in May 2011 will include an additional $1.2 million for the Global Planning Table to include another four professionals dedicated to the "process." That's $1,200,000 for a "plan" that has yet to be approved. (It can be argued that the diversion of $1.2 million contributed to the peremptory firing of eight JFNA employees -- to date.) That's your money, folks. But, to this JFNA leadership, never mind -- it's their money to spend as they may dictate -- that's life in the monarchy. The Budget and Finance Committee, a more than willing servant. But, what the GPT threatens and and promises has awakened federations and donors around the country to the potential for destruction of all that we have built. There is momentum today for change -- to examine how much we have collectively lost since the merger that created JFNA (for JAFI/JDC well over $100,000,0000 in core allocations) while at 25 Broadway thumbs twiddle and leaders make a mockery of agreements (including the Merger Agreement) and the concept of good faith, common commitment and partnership. As one federation leader observed at a GPT Regional self-styled "Feedback Meeting," none of our communal values are reflected in the GPT as presented -- when the question was raised, the answer was something like "...let me get back to you on that." Friends, a self-styled "Big Idea' Can also be a bad one. The JFNA of today, rather than inspiring us to the best that we can be, demands the least of us. That is both a tragedy and a too heavy price to pay for $30.3 million per year. If you believe that this is another "no big deal," think again. There are of course choices: you can sit in a darkened room and cover your eyes and ears like the hear-no-evil, see-no-evil monkeys. (JFNA calls this the preferred way and those that do so are called "they're JFNA.") Or burn a major amount of incense to mask the stench coming in the days ahead. Or you could speak up for our system's, your federation's, your own values and principles -- but, first and foremost, you'll have to explain them. Speak up. Rwexler