This article appeared in yesterday's Jerusalem Post.
"UJC budget plan may squeeze charities
ALLISON HOFFMAN, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK
Facing a deepening US recession, the umbrella organization of Jewish communities throughout North America is considering a budget proposal that would bolster domestic operations at the expense of programs in Israel and throughout the world.
According to a memo sent to employees, the United Jewish Communities expects to shrink its overall budget for 2009 by 18 percent - from $37 million to about $30m. - through a combination of layoffs and program cuts.
But officials at the Jewish Agency for Israel and the Joint Distribution Committee - the two main bodies responsible for channeling American Jewish charitable donations to overseas projects - told The Jerusalem Post the UJC leadership, under pressure from individual federations to cut dues fees, is recommending that another $7.5m. budgeted for overseas projects be made discretionary.
Under that plan, which will be considered at a board meeting scheduled for Monday, federations would be required to pay just $22.5m. in dues overall.
That could mean sharp cuts at both JAFI and JDC if federations decide not to cough up the extra dollars.
"How will federations explain to donors that funds allocated for overseas needs - such as feeding the hungry or aliya to Israel - are now used to balance the budget of the National Agency?" asked JDC heads Irving Smokler and Steven Schwager in a letter sent Thursday to the UJC.
"We also realize that the invasion of overseas funds for organizational purposes may not occur should the shortfall be 'made whole' by federations. However, balancing an administrative budget with dollars for needy overseas Jews seems to us both wrong and inappropriate," the letter went on.
Schwager told the Post in a statement Friday there had been "no substantive response from UJC on the issues we raised."
JAFI chairman Richard Pearlstone told the Post that he had also sent a letter to the UJC but had not received any formal response. He declined to comment on the specifics of the $7.5m. "off-the-top" proposal because he had not yet seen it in writing - but acknowledged that it appeared to be a unilateral move by the UJC to shield itself in a tough fundraising climate without regard for either JAFI or the JDC.
"It would appear that's what it is," Pearlstone told the Post.
The relationship between the three organizations has already been strained by a January decision on the part of UJC - created a decade ago largely to coordinate North American fundraising for JAFI and the JDC - to consider breaking their exclusive funding deal in order to begin giving money to startup philanthropic organizations in Israel and around the world. A final decision on that plan has been deferred until this summer.
UJC spokesman Joe Berkofsky told the Post he would not comment on the specifics of any budget proposals ahead of Monday's meeting, but he said that the organization was struggling to address the needs of individual federations whose own fundraising has been squeezed.
Donors are giving less, and many regular donors have not yet renewed their pledges, Berkofsky said. Federations have raised about $451.5m. so far this year, down from $468.3m.
UJC, which held a national conference call last week with the company that pioneered Barack Obama's grassroots Internet fundraising strategy, is pushing to help individual federations make up the difference with requests focused on helping the needy in the US rather than relying on traditional appeals for money to assist Jews in Israel or abroad.
A viral video produced for Pessah reminds donors that 11 million Americans are out of work and asks donors for money to help Jewish families in the US stave off foreclosure, heat their homes, and buy food - with helping those around the world appearing almost as an afterthought."
___________________________________________________________________
Sadly, this Jerusalem Post article paints an accurate picture of where our system is headed into today's UJC Budget & Finance Committee and Executive Committee. The members of the Committees who vote in favor of the "off the top" Draft Proposal will be saying this:
"I am in favor of cutting programs to help the most needy of our People to fund the administration of an organization that is of less and less value to us."
No Jewish leader has ever cast such a vote before. And don't let anyone tell you that this isn't what you are being asked to vote for, my friends.
Rwexler
Monday, April 6, 2009
Sunday, April 5, 2009
BLOGS, BLOGGERS...AND JTA
Many of us received a fund-raising letter solicitation from JTA last week. It contained, among other pleas , the following:
"Without a strong JTA, the storytelling will be left to bloggers, twitterers, and non-professionals. Is this the best way for our future Jewish stories to be told and recorded?"
Elisa Spungen Bildner, President, JTA, Friday April 3rd in a fundraising appeal email(emphasis by JTA)
Well, Elisa, as a contributor over the years to JTA and as a Blogger, let me briefly respond in the context of UJThee...and Me. JTA, as a recipient of some support from the federations as well as directly from federation leaders, is often viewed as a "captive" of those very federations. When JTA publishes an article the facts in which are critical of, let us say, UJC, I have hear some federation leaders say, almost in these words: "We 'own" JTA and we should put a stop to these kinds of articles." While I don't perceive that JTA's leadership has been constrained or censured by this kind of attitude, the attitude is there. Under such a circumstance, can one state with absolute candor that the full Jewish stories of today are being told in JTA?
I also observe that the JTA itself has seen the value of blogging emerge on its own pages -- The Fundermentalist and The Telegraph , for example, are providing periodic interesting insights on JTA's own Blog link.
This Blog, unlike most, arose out of the suppression of all...all...dissent by UJC's current lay and professional leadership. JTA has not found this reality to be worthy of much ink. Unlike others, this Blog's focus will change, even if this Blog does not "go away," when this leadership is gone.
We need a strong and independent press covering Jewish issues and Jewish stories in North America. I wish the JTA greater independence. Somehow I sense that JTA and the multitude of those "blogging" on Jewish organizational issues, will coexist and our communities will be better served out of that coexistence.
Rwexler
"Without a strong JTA, the storytelling will be left to bloggers, twitterers, and non-professionals. Is this the best way for our future Jewish stories to be told and recorded?"
Elisa Spungen Bildner, President, JTA, Friday April 3rd in a fundraising appeal email(emphasis by JTA)
Well, Elisa, as a contributor over the years to JTA and as a Blogger, let me briefly respond in the context of UJThee...and Me. JTA, as a recipient of some support from the federations as well as directly from federation leaders, is often viewed as a "captive" of those very federations. When JTA publishes an article the facts in which are critical of, let us say, UJC, I have hear some federation leaders say, almost in these words: "We 'own" JTA and we should put a stop to these kinds of articles." While I don't perceive that JTA's leadership has been constrained or censured by this kind of attitude, the attitude is there. Under such a circumstance, can one state with absolute candor that the full Jewish stories of today are being told in JTA?
I also observe that the JTA itself has seen the value of blogging emerge on its own pages -- The Fundermentalist and The Telegraph , for example, are providing periodic interesting insights on JTA's own Blog link.
This Blog, unlike most, arose out of the suppression of all...all...dissent by UJC's current lay and professional leadership. JTA has not found this reality to be worthy of much ink. Unlike others, this Blog's focus will change, even if this Blog does not "go away," when this leadership is gone.
We need a strong and independent press covering Jewish issues and Jewish stories in North America. I wish the JTA greater independence. Somehow I sense that JTA and the multitude of those "blogging" on Jewish organizational issues, will coexist and our communities will be better served out of that coexistence.
Rwexler
Saturday, April 4, 2009
COMMON CONCERNS..AND THE UJC BUDGET
- To the UJC Budget & Finance Committee and Executive Committee:
- On April Fools Day, the members of UJC's Budget & Finance and Executive Committees received the draft UJC Budget. As of the night of April 1, four of you had sent me a copy. Thanks, but I probably was not supposed to see it -- just as no other UJC Board member was...only more so. Before some initial reactions to the Budget document....
Also on April 1, Forward reporters, Rebecca Spence and Anthony Weiss, published a well-documented story on UJC's self-imposed Budget and Dues woes. A significant portion of that story is reprinted below, obviously with emphasis added.
"UJC’s Future at Stake as Local Charities Call for Dramatic Cuts
By Anthony Weiss and Rebecca Spence
Published April 01, 2009, issue of April 10, 2009.
"United Jewish Communities, the national association of federated Jewish charities, is facing calls from a host of federation leaders for drastic cuts in next year’s budget.
A combination of tough economic times and widespread dissatisfaction with UJC has led to the calls for change. At least one proposal would strip the national organization down to what it was more than a decade ago.
At stake is the future of UJC...The merged body has long faced criticism over its effectiveness, but not until now have such severe measures been floated. According to some federation system observers, the contemplated cuts could mark the beginning of the end for UJC.
“This could result in cutting UJC so badly that as it presently is constituted, it would not be able to continue,” said Gerald Bubis, founding director of the School of Jewish Communal Service at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. Bubis co-wrote a book on the making of UJC.
With offices in Jerusalem, New York, Los Angeles and Washington, UJC is an organizational behemoth. Until recent layoffs, it maintained a full-time staff of 208, and its budget for the 2008–2009 fiscal year was $37 million. Its funding comes directly from local federations, which pay dues relative to the size of their annual campaign. In practical terms, reducing the UJC budget by a certain percentage would spell a roughly equivalent reduction in annual dues.
Forced downsizing of local federations because of the financial crisis — the Cleveland federation, for example, slashed its budget by about 22% and fired 25 people — has focused federations’ attention on local community needs. Many are now looking to the national system for further savings.
UJC treasurer Michael Gelman, who chairs the budget and finance committee, said in a statement that UJC and federations had held “in-depth discussions” as part of the 2009–2010 budget process. “The committee is acutely aware of the needs and desires of federations, whose budget requests have ranged across the spectrum,” Gelman said. “Some insist that after years of downsizing, further cutbacks would impair UJC’s ability to function in critical areas, while others seek wider reductions.”
Gelman added that discussions would continue as part of the budget process and conclude with a final review by the UJC board of trustees later this spring.
While the merger that formed UJC was meant to streamline the national system and provide effective leadership for local federations’ domestic and overseas work, UJC has long been accused of bureaucratic inefficiency and lack of vision.
Some insiders say the pressures of the current financial crisis have merely pushed long-percolating problems to the fore. “The economic crash simply accelerated the issues and underlined them,” one big-city federation executive said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “If there had been a successful national organization that was meeting the needs of communities, there would still be a cut, but it would not have been as drastic as it is now.”
Stephen Hoffman, president of the Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland, said he does not want to see any money taken away from the Jewish Agency or the JDC. He also said that even in the pre-merger days, when the CJF and the UJA were separate entities, the same questions over dues and the functioning of the agencies were always in play.
“The merger was supposed to help resolve some of them,” he said. “It hasn’t successfully yet, so we continue to have the challenge of what different federations from different parts of the country want a national organization to do. It’s always going to be a challenge serving these conflicting visions.” (Emphasis added)
* * *
The quotes in the article above, one attributed to Steve Hoffman and another to one of his colleagues speaking to the Forward on the condition of anonymity, are, to this writer, compelling. Later that day I read the Budget Draft. I was reminded of the old lawyer joke: "What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start." The UJC Draft Budget is just that -- a good, positive start. Certainly a positive step forward...with a long, long way to go. The Budget Draft offers the Budget & Finance Committee the opportunity to consider an 18% reduction from the FY 2009 Budget with plenty...plenty...of room for greater programmatic reductions. Everyone will appropriately congratulate Sam Astrof and his staff, and Michael Gelman, for an excellent job. They deserve the congratulations. But, the Budget and Finance Chair doesn't believe that any further cuts to this Budget are possible. We disagree. Consider:
The Budget suggests without saying so that the ridiculous "realignment" of financial resource development is over. While the Narrative evidences that Development and Global Operations ("Israel" has once again been dropped from UJC's lexicon) remain in a state of confusion, the "merging" of Community Consulting into Development with an emphasis on direct assistance to federations in their Annual Campaign efforts, is an unspoken acknowledgment, two years too late but a direct acknowledgment nonetheless, that the "Reorganization Strategy" was and is a strategy that took UJC off the tracks. However, if UJC leaders believe that in allocating dollars back to FRD, they are "assisting JAFI and JDC" in some existential manner, rationalizing their "off the top, save UJC at any cost" approach, they are acting in a manner so cynical as to be, for one of the few times, transparent.- The section on Development appears to have almost been taken verbatim from the March 2008 Large Cities Executive report, barely heretofore acknowledged by UJC, Refining UJC's Vision, and that's a good thing. It's as if UJC's leaders either had an epiphany or got religion or, most likely, looking for that rationalization cited above, any of which yields a refreshing change in approach, emphasizing something the federations need and want.
- Even with all of this, confusion remains as between the Center for Jewish Philanthropy and Development, between the desire for more Missions and the budget for Missions (with a major plus being that Missions themselves are relocated to Development), the emphasis on Development and the cut in budget for the invaluable Campaign Chairs & Directors Mission. It's as if UJC management got to a certain point...to a good place...and then its internal, infernal schizophrenia kicked in.
- Someone will have to ask the question, in this time of economic crisis, do we need UJC spending $1,250,000 ($950,000 plus a $300,000 "carry-forward") in 2010 on "Branding," with all that portends, as important as that subject may be? (By the way, the Branding Initiative appears in a Budget for UJC approval [or rejection] for the first time -- after millions have been spent for....what, exactly?)
- UJC's work in Israel continues to need careful examination and, in this guy's view, a true "needs assessment." For example, why does UJC-Israel require 4.5 FTE staff dedicated to "Needs Assessment/Program Planning?" What do they do? What is it "planned" that 4.5 FTE will do? Why do we need the multi-million dollar expense of a do nothing UJC Israel office and the Budget it requires at this time of federations' economic pain?
- The Budget reflects a "reduction" of $250,000 by eliminating a 2009 "grant" to "Sheatufim" (one of this leadership's new "NGO partners") in Israel. While I applaud the elimination of this "grant," I do not recall any such "grant" being approved as a line item in the UJC 2009 Budget. If I am correct, so much for "transparency."
- Very quietly, all budgetary (and for that matter UJC) references to Renaissance & Renewal, one of the Pillars on which UJC was constructed...gone. As if it never existed. Without a peep.
- The 2010 Budget includes a $500,000 GA subsidy. The "new GA" designed by the Chairs and CEO has been a financial (and institutional) train wreck. The entire GA construct needs to be rethought immediately. If the GA can "break even" only with a $500,000 federation subsidy and a $700 per Registrant fee, the system has to respond to the dual question: "Can we continue to afford an annual GA" or "Can the system, in its current condition, afford not to have an annual GA?" Merely throwing $500,000 at the General Assembly doesn't answer either.
And so many questions remain or are opened by this Budget: how much was really spent on FRD and UJC-Israel in FY 2009; if Federation Peer Yardstick was one of UJC's highest priorities in FY 2009, why is it now relegated to just a passing mention in 2010; out of what resources has UJC paid severance to those terminated over the past two years and from what funds will severance payments to the 31 staff members (and are such terminations really required as stated by the CEO in a Memo to the UJC staff) be paid; why does UJC seem to persist in its pursuit of creating a charity in Israel (growing, of course, out of a "planning table" in New York City) in competition with JDC and JAFI at a time that Budget dollars are so precious; are UJC's most senior professionals cutting their compensation and, if not, why not...and I am certain each of you, as you read the Draft Budget will have more.
And...there is the threshold question of why there is not a preemptive federation action to replace UJC's current leadership with a sense of immediacy appropriate to the crisis in which UJC finds itself and which these leaders created? For this, there is no answer...no discussion, within UJC at any rate. And UJC leaders with some federations will claim that unless the Draft Proposal on "off the top" is adopted, UJC is "dead" and the JAFI/JDC core allocation will die with it as well. In their desperation, these people believe that the few federations which will "guarantee" the sanctity of core for "off the top" purposes will defund core if "off the top" as proposed is rejected. They are so wrong... and so sadly misguided.
But, with all of the questions and all of the issues, at a time of economic crisis for our federations, the 2010 Draft UJC Budget represents a good start...but it is only a starting point, not the finish line... to restoring UJC's relevance. It will take real leadership, new leadership. for and of the federations to get there.
Rwexler
Friday, April 3, 2009
THE UJC "RESCUE"
After JDC leadership's well-reasoned letter expressing in a principled manner, institutional disappointment and disapproval of the "off the top" proposal to rescue UJC from its own institutional failures driven by UJC's leaders, a concerted effort has been made to literally discredit those who find the proposal unworthy of the federations. The argument being made is a simple one: "if we don't pass this 'off the top' proposal, UJC will disintegrate and the system we have built will collapse." And why might that be?
For two years, I and many others have been warning federation and UJC leaders, time and again, that the system is very fragile; UJC lacks any real engagement with the federations; that you, its leaders, have grown more and more isolated from ownership; and more and more federations will stop paying their dues in whole or in part. These UJC leaders refused to listen, and not only disregarded this advice, they dismissed and attempted to discredit those who offered it as guilty of treason. Today, ten years after the merger, core allocations to JDC and JAFI have dropped by 40% while this leadership stood silent (or most recently chose to blame the Agency and JDC) or, worse, constantly deprecated the annual campaign (up to and including the FLI) they now conclude demands their help and guidance.
Even today, in the midst of this remarkable four years of failure, the owners have yet to hear a word of contrition or any acceptance of responsibility from those UJC leaders who now argue that the same system they have forsaken rescue them. UJC's leaders, charged with the responsibility by the federations who worked on the methodology of "off the top," have made no effort...none... to sit with the leadership of JAFI or JDC to engage in the kind of discussion that might have resulted/might result in a plan that might be acceptable to all.
One federation chief professional wrote a lengthy, accusatory letter to JDC that included the following:
"The proposals that emerged from the discussion did not make everyone happy. In fact, everyone had an issue with some part of what was being recommended, but reaching a consensus required compromise. It was understood and agreed upon that both JDC and JAFI would be consulted on what was being proposed and that we would not go ahead without both partners' support. As I understand it, Joe Kanfer called both Irv Smokler and Richie Pearlstone from the car on the way to the airport to brief them, and Howard Rieger spoke to Steve Schwager and Moshe Vigdor the next day....
The proposal developed in Chicago attempted to isolate the fundraising component of the UJC budget, suggested using it to bring JDC's, JAFI's and federations' fundraising efforts into closer cooperation and develop a system that is both more effective and efficient in raising more overseas funds!" (Emphasis the author's)
I have great respect for the letter writer, if not for the letter in question. But, let's be clear -- there has been no consultation with the Joint or the Agency...none. The specifics of the Proposal were not discussed in any detail formally or informally, neither in person nor by phone call "on the way to the airport" or otherwise. Further, if one reads the Proposal, there is no "isolation of the fundraising component of the UJC budget" and any...any...fair analysis of UJC's Development effort these past four years would evidence no synchronicity between that woeful national effort and the work of the two overseas partners. To suggest otherwise insults the intelligence.
What UJC's leaders want to do is to confront JAFI and JDC with a fait accompli; the federation leaders who believe in the necessity of an "off the top" proposal wanted a real discussion of the concept of "off the top" to take place before the fact, not after. My recommendation to the leaders of both JDC and JAFI would be to take the same approach to "off the top" as President Kennedy took in the Bay of Pigs crisis -- ignore this Proposal and accept a meeting with the Federation CEO's who led the Dues Proposal effort -- a meeting with a clean slate. Without UJC in the room -- after all this is a "bailout," a rescue of UJC from the failed policies and specious, costly "plans" of those who created this mess --a serious discussion can take place among serious people of how any such Proposal will protect core allocations, how JDC and JAFI and the federations can effectively lead the continental Development effort, and how the federations, the Agency and Joint can assure an effective continental central agency that operates in the best interests of the federations and their work in Israel and globally. There are creative ideas already coming forward that might lead to the fair solution that this Proposal fails to offer.
To "blame" JDC for expressing the ethical dilemma embodied in the current Draft Proposal is akin to killing the messenger. Whether the Proposal is adopted or not, in its current preposterous outline or another, let's be clear, the need for this "rescue" has been created by the current lay and professional leadership of the organization that would be rescued. Just where, exactly, have we heard or read of that kind of management failure in our daily media 24/7? Should those who led us into this massive failure, to this precipice, now be the beneficiaries of any bailout?
I know how I would vote.
Rwexler
For two years, I and many others have been warning federation and UJC leaders, time and again, that the system is very fragile; UJC lacks any real engagement with the federations; that you, its leaders, have grown more and more isolated from ownership; and more and more federations will stop paying their dues in whole or in part. These UJC leaders refused to listen, and not only disregarded this advice, they dismissed and attempted to discredit those who offered it as guilty of treason. Today, ten years after the merger, core allocations to JDC and JAFI have dropped by 40% while this leadership stood silent (or most recently chose to blame the Agency and JDC) or, worse, constantly deprecated the annual campaign (up to and including the FLI) they now conclude demands their help and guidance.
Even today, in the midst of this remarkable four years of failure, the owners have yet to hear a word of contrition or any acceptance of responsibility from those UJC leaders who now argue that the same system they have forsaken rescue them. UJC's leaders, charged with the responsibility by the federations who worked on the methodology of "off the top," have made no effort...none... to sit with the leadership of JAFI or JDC to engage in the kind of discussion that might have resulted/might result in a plan that might be acceptable to all.
One federation chief professional wrote a lengthy, accusatory letter to JDC that included the following:
"The proposals that emerged from the discussion did not make everyone happy. In fact, everyone had an issue with some part of what was being recommended, but reaching a consensus required compromise. It was understood and agreed upon that both JDC and JAFI would be consulted on what was being proposed and that we would not go ahead without both partners' support. As I understand it, Joe Kanfer called both Irv Smokler and Richie Pearlstone from the car on the way to the airport to brief them, and Howard Rieger spoke to Steve Schwager and Moshe Vigdor the next day....
The proposal developed in Chicago attempted to isolate the fundraising component of the UJC budget, suggested using it to bring JDC's, JAFI's and federations' fundraising efforts into closer cooperation and develop a system that is both more effective and efficient in raising more overseas funds!" (Emphasis the author's)
I have great respect for the letter writer, if not for the letter in question. But, let's be clear -- there has been no consultation with the Joint or the Agency...none. The specifics of the Proposal were not discussed in any detail formally or informally, neither in person nor by phone call "on the way to the airport" or otherwise. Further, if one reads the Proposal, there is no "isolation of the fundraising component of the UJC budget" and any...any...fair analysis of UJC's Development effort these past four years would evidence no synchronicity between that woeful national effort and the work of the two overseas partners. To suggest otherwise insults the intelligence.
What UJC's leaders want to do is to confront JAFI and JDC with a fait accompli; the federation leaders who believe in the necessity of an "off the top" proposal wanted a real discussion of the concept of "off the top" to take place before the fact, not after. My recommendation to the leaders of both JDC and JAFI would be to take the same approach to "off the top" as President Kennedy took in the Bay of Pigs crisis -- ignore this Proposal and accept a meeting with the Federation CEO's who led the Dues Proposal effort -- a meeting with a clean slate. Without UJC in the room -- after all this is a "bailout," a rescue of UJC from the failed policies and specious, costly "plans" of those who created this mess --a serious discussion can take place among serious people of how any such Proposal will protect core allocations, how JDC and JAFI and the federations can effectively lead the continental Development effort, and how the federations, the Agency and Joint can assure an effective continental central agency that operates in the best interests of the federations and their work in Israel and globally. There are creative ideas already coming forward that might lead to the fair solution that this Proposal fails to offer.
To "blame" JDC for expressing the ethical dilemma embodied in the current Draft Proposal is akin to killing the messenger. Whether the Proposal is adopted or not, in its current preposterous outline or another, let's be clear, the need for this "rescue" has been created by the current lay and professional leadership of the organization that would be rescued. Just where, exactly, have we heard or read of that kind of management failure in our daily media 24/7? Should those who led us into this massive failure, to this precipice, now be the beneficiaries of any bailout?
I know how I would vote.
Rwexler
THE UJC DUES "PROPOSAL"
Yesterday the JDC transmitted a letter to UJC and federation leadership expressing its institutional, principled concern with the rumored UJC "off the top" approach to saving itself. This morning JDC and the federation world received UJC's "response" -- a poorly thought-through formulaic approach that, if implemented, abandons timeless principles, including gross misstatements presented as fact, and offering JAFI/JDC no guarantees of their diminished core allocations whatsoever. (The fact that one of the Co-Chairs is a member of the JDC Board astounds.) This was presented to the federations as "Official Talking Points" or, as one of my friends said to me today: "the official fait accompli."
Here it is with my comments interlineated:
"DRAFT
UJC Dues Subcommittee Proposal
Co-Chairs
Harvey Barnett
Steve Silverman
The following proposal and recommendation represents the consensus of the Dues Subcommittee:
Operating Principles (there are actually no principles contained herein)
1. As reaffirmed at the Federation Leadership Institute, payment of UJC dues remains a
mandatory obligation of membership. (By virtue of this "Proposal," less so)
2. The proposal is to transition ("transition" this is not) to a new dues approach with two tranches. The proposed two tranche approach will be comprised of:
A. The first tranche (dues) which will be a fixed percentage of the most recently reported annual campaign. A key advantage ( yes, a real "advantage") of instituting a fixed percentage approach is that it enables federations to calculate their dues obligation in advance of their own and the UJC annual budget process. Another advantage is that the dues are tied to federation campaign results.
B. The second tranche is the difference between the approved UJC budget and the amount funded through obligatory dues. This amount will be funded from the core overseas allocation. (So, if read as written, the federations will have the "advantage" of knowing what they will pay, their former partners will just never know what they will receive. Fair? I don't think so; no one could think so.)
3. In order to stabilize overseas funding, it is proposed that each federation be strongly encouraged to add their pro rata share of the second tranche (which will be based on the total approved budget less the dues portion) to their current overseas allocation.
Federations should adhere to the principle ( A "principle" that would be set aside to save UJC from itself.) that they will not reduce funding to overseas allocations greater than reductions in local agency allocations. (Maybe this is considered to be a "guarantee" by the draftspersons; it isn't.)
4. Dues hardship applications will continue to be reviewed by the Financial Relations Committee in accordance with the established process.
5. At the conclusion of a two year transitional ( again "transitional" -- "transitioning" from what exactly?) period, the implementation of this dues approach will be reviewed and evaluated.
6. This dues approach fulfills the commitment made at the Federation Leadership Institute to join and come to the table with our partners JAFI and JDC to enhance working together to be more effective in raising and allocating funds for overseas. ( M'God, THIS IS BEYOND BELIEF!! If this is the "fulfillment of the commitment," then it is proof that there is no such commitment. There has been no happy "joining and coming to the table" with JDC/JAFI; but this is UJC's idea of how to "enhance working together.")
Implementation of Proposed Dues Approach
1. In year one, obligatory dues for FY 2009/2010 will be assessed at 2.5% of the 2007 (and, why you may ask, 2007? Think about it. Quiz to follow.) individual federation reported annual campaign, aggregating approximately $23 million (representing about a 39% reduction in system-wide dues over the prior year).
The difference between the approved UJC budget and the obligatory dues portion will be funded from the second tranche. ( Thus, JDC's point proved. UJC will just take "the difference" from funds designated for Israel and Overseas.)
2. In year two, the obligatory dues for FY 2010/2011 will be assessed at 2.5% of the 2008 individual federation reported annual campaign.
The difference between the approved UJC budget and the obligatory dues portion will be funded from the second tranche.
3. The above will be re-evaluated after two years. (And, this means, of course...nothing.)
___________________________________________________________________
Friends, this Proposal cannot possibly reflect the Plan that my federation and others support. There is no way that Chicago or most other federations would support a proposal that by its terms would result in a $7,340,000 reduction to JAFI/JDC to fund UJC. It is a Proposal that lacks any assurance of core, and no secure commitment to either collective responsibility or the core values that are the foundation of our system. Might an actual meeting among UJC, the federation leadership, JDC and JAFI at which such the concept could have been discussed (as was no doubt the leading federations' plan) been of value; of course. But, what the federation leadership who conceived of this Proposal did not contemplate was that that is not UJC's way of doing business -- UJC's way is to never think a "proposal" through, throw it out there and approach the matter as a fait accompli. But, by sending this Proposal out as written, UJC has hopefully killed the concept, as well-intentioned as the federations who conceived it planned it to be.
I represent neither JAFI nor JDC but I cannot conceive of a circumstance whereby this Proposal could be acceptable to either organization as written for all of the reasons stated with such eloquence in the Joint's Smokler/Schwager letter. Were I a leader of UJC (which, for those of you new to this Blog, I am not), or a Co-Chair of the "UJC Dues Subcommittee," I would formally take this "Proposal" off the table by the onset of Shabbat. They won't.
Shabbat shalom.
Rwexler
Here it is with my comments interlineated:
"DRAFT
UJC Dues Subcommittee Proposal
Co-Chairs
Harvey Barnett
Steve Silverman
The following proposal and recommendation represents the consensus of the Dues Subcommittee:
Operating Principles (there are actually no principles contained herein)
1. As reaffirmed at the Federation Leadership Institute, payment of UJC dues remains a
mandatory obligation of membership. (By virtue of this "Proposal," less so)
2. The proposal is to transition ("transition" this is not) to a new dues approach with two tranches. The proposed two tranche approach will be comprised of:
A. The first tranche (dues) which will be a fixed percentage of the most recently reported annual campaign. A key advantage ( yes, a real "advantage") of instituting a fixed percentage approach is that it enables federations to calculate their dues obligation in advance of their own and the UJC annual budget process. Another advantage is that the dues are tied to federation campaign results.
B. The second tranche is the difference between the approved UJC budget and the amount funded through obligatory dues. This amount will be funded from the core overseas allocation. (So, if read as written, the federations will have the "advantage" of knowing what they will pay, their former partners will just never know what they will receive. Fair? I don't think so; no one could think so.)
3. In order to stabilize overseas funding, it is proposed that each federation be strongly encouraged to add their pro rata share of the second tranche (which will be based on the total approved budget less the dues portion) to their current overseas allocation.
Federations should adhere to the principle ( A "principle" that would be set aside to save UJC from itself.) that they will not reduce funding to overseas allocations greater than reductions in local agency allocations. (Maybe this is considered to be a "guarantee" by the draftspersons; it isn't.)
4. Dues hardship applications will continue to be reviewed by the Financial Relations Committee in accordance with the established process.
5. At the conclusion of a two year transitional ( again "transitional" -- "transitioning" from what exactly?) period, the implementation of this dues approach will be reviewed and evaluated.
6. This dues approach fulfills the commitment made at the Federation Leadership Institute to join and come to the table with our partners JAFI and JDC to enhance working together to be more effective in raising and allocating funds for overseas. ( M'God, THIS IS BEYOND BELIEF!! If this is the "fulfillment of the commitment," then it is proof that there is no such commitment. There has been no happy "joining and coming to the table" with JDC/JAFI; but this is UJC's idea of how to "enhance working together.")
Implementation of Proposed Dues Approach
1. In year one, obligatory dues for FY 2009/2010 will be assessed at 2.5% of the 2007 (and, why you may ask, 2007? Think about it. Quiz to follow.) individual federation reported annual campaign, aggregating approximately $23 million (representing about a 39% reduction in system-wide dues over the prior year).
The difference between the approved UJC budget and the obligatory dues portion will be funded from the second tranche. ( Thus, JDC's point proved. UJC will just take "the difference" from funds designated for Israel and Overseas.)
2. In year two, the obligatory dues for FY 2010/2011 will be assessed at 2.5% of the 2008 individual federation reported annual campaign.
The difference between the approved UJC budget and the obligatory dues portion will be funded from the second tranche.
3. The above will be re-evaluated after two years. (And, this means, of course...nothing.)
___________________________________________________________________
Friends, this Proposal cannot possibly reflect the Plan that my federation and others support. There is no way that Chicago or most other federations would support a proposal that by its terms would result in a $7,340,000 reduction to JAFI/JDC to fund UJC. It is a Proposal that lacks any assurance of core, and no secure commitment to either collective responsibility or the core values that are the foundation of our system. Might an actual meeting among UJC, the federation leadership, JDC and JAFI at which such the concept could have been discussed (as was no doubt the leading federations' plan) been of value; of course. But, what the federation leadership who conceived of this Proposal did not contemplate was that that is not UJC's way of doing business -- UJC's way is to never think a "proposal" through, throw it out there and approach the matter as a fait accompli. But, by sending this Proposal out as written, UJC has hopefully killed the concept, as well-intentioned as the federations who conceived it planned it to be.
I represent neither JAFI nor JDC but I cannot conceive of a circumstance whereby this Proposal could be acceptable to either organization as written for all of the reasons stated with such eloquence in the Joint's Smokler/Schwager letter. Were I a leader of UJC (which, for those of you new to this Blog, I am not), or a Co-Chair of the "UJC Dues Subcommittee," I would formally take this "Proposal" off the table by the onset of Shabbat. They won't.
Shabbat shalom.
Rwexler
Thursday, April 2, 2009
"OFF THE TOP"
The leaders of the JDC sent the following letter (emphasis added) to UJC today. It is a particularly articulate and well-reasoned analysis of the failed logic underlying UJC's desperate attempts to save itself from itself. This letter is not from leaders outside of the federation system but leaders within it who care about it as deeply as any of us.
"TO: JOSEPH KANFER
KATHY MANNING
HOWARD RIEGER
FROM: IRVING A. SMOKLER
STEVE SCHWAGER
CC: FEDERATION PRESIDENTS AND EXECUTIVES
JDC BOARD OF DIRECTORS
RE: UJC DUES ISSUE
DATE: APRIL 2, 2009
JDC has been informed that at a meeting last week of a special UJC dues subcommittee, a proposal was passed and recommended for adoption on April 6, 2009 to the UJC Budget Committee and Executive Committee.
While we have asked for a written document detailing this proposal, we have not yet seen anything. We believe, based on conversations with Howard Rieger and Joe Kanfer, that the proposal is as follows:
1. The first part of the proposal is to cut the UJC budget from $37.5 million to $30 million and allow Federations to keep these savings.
2. Out of the $30 million UJC budget, UJC will ask the Federations to only pay $22.5 million as dues.
3. UJC would ask the Federations to send this second $7.5 million to UJC designated for overseas activities of JDC and JAFI. Regardless of whether Federations comply or not, UJC would take $7.5 million of designated overseas funds and use them for its own corporate purposes.
We were told that there is disagreement to this proposal among the Large City Federations.
JDC wishes to express its extreme unhappiness and disappointment with this proposal. How will federations explain to donors that funds allocated for overseas needs -- such as feeding the hungry or aliyah to Israel -- are now used to balance the budget of the National Agency? We believe the above proposal, if correct, will challenge the efforts of UJC to maintain a reputation for transparency and accountability.
As always, we support the need for a central address and a strong national organization. We also realize that the invasion of overseas funds for organizational purposes may not occur should the shortfall be "made whole" by federations. However, balancing an administrative budget with dollars for needy overseas Jews seems to us both wrong and inappropriate.
We look forward to your comments."
___________________________________________________________________
I have written of the UJC "Set-Up" so transparent and predictable in a prior Post. What JDC's leaders have learned only confirms the "process" that UJC has now put in place without regard for its impacts. It's UJC's leaders pushing women, the elderly and children aside in their rush to the lifeboats.
There are well-meaning Federation leaders who have put the "off the top" proposal on the table. Hopefully they will examine the logic of JDC's argument and understand that "saving UJC" cannot take precedence over our fiduciary responsibilities to our donors and to those of our People most in need.
Rwexler
"TO: JOSEPH KANFER
KATHY MANNING
HOWARD RIEGER
FROM: IRVING A. SMOKLER
STEVE SCHWAGER
CC: FEDERATION PRESIDENTS AND EXECUTIVES
JDC BOARD OF DIRECTORS
RE: UJC DUES ISSUE
DATE: APRIL 2, 2009
JDC has been informed that at a meeting last week of a special UJC dues subcommittee, a proposal was passed and recommended for adoption on April 6, 2009 to the UJC Budget Committee and Executive Committee.
While we have asked for a written document detailing this proposal, we have not yet seen anything. We believe, based on conversations with Howard Rieger and Joe Kanfer, that the proposal is as follows:
1. The first part of the proposal is to cut the UJC budget from $37.5 million to $30 million and allow Federations to keep these savings.
2. Out of the $30 million UJC budget, UJC will ask the Federations to only pay $22.5 million as dues.
3. UJC would ask the Federations to send this second $7.5 million to UJC designated for overseas activities of JDC and JAFI. Regardless of whether Federations comply or not, UJC would take $7.5 million of designated overseas funds and use them for its own corporate purposes.
We were told that there is disagreement to this proposal among the Large City Federations.
JDC wishes to express its extreme unhappiness and disappointment with this proposal. How will federations explain to donors that funds allocated for overseas needs -- such as feeding the hungry or aliyah to Israel -- are now used to balance the budget of the National Agency? We believe the above proposal, if correct, will challenge the efforts of UJC to maintain a reputation for transparency and accountability.
As always, we support the need for a central address and a strong national organization. We also realize that the invasion of overseas funds for organizational purposes may not occur should the shortfall be "made whole" by federations. However, balancing an administrative budget with dollars for needy overseas Jews seems to us both wrong and inappropriate.
We look forward to your comments."
___________________________________________________________________
I have written of the UJC "Set-Up" so transparent and predictable in a prior Post. What JDC's leaders have learned only confirms the "process" that UJC has now put in place without regard for its impacts. It's UJC's leaders pushing women, the elderly and children aside in their rush to the lifeboats.
There are well-meaning Federation leaders who have put the "off the top" proposal on the table. Hopefully they will examine the logic of JDC's argument and understand that "saving UJC" cannot take precedence over our fiduciary responsibilities to our donors and to those of our People most in need.
Rwexler
ENDS AND BEGINNINGS
I was taken with a small cartoon in The New Yorker this week (March 30, 2009). Two aging bums, disheveled, cheeks chock-a-block with stubble, are standing next to one another. One says to the other: "In my day, there was no reward for incompetence." And, today, a Large City Executive called me and said, among other things: "...it looks like the only thing that can save UJC now is Lourdes."
When I think of the errors that have been made -- whether of commission or omission -- over the past four years plus, none even comes close to ranking with the errors I made over a decade ago. It was then that I, and others, came to the conclusion that UJA and CJF, weakened mainly by the federation system demanding more of the organizations while demanding that they pay less but wanting absolute control of one while underfunding the other, must merge. Many warned me that the end product would only be as strong as the support the federations gave the new entity. I was convinced that that support, once earned, would be constant, even grow. Foolishly, I also believed that the new organization, which in its first decision began the process of undermining the good -- adopting the name "United Jewish Communities" and tossing aside as "part of the past" the most valued brand in Jewish philanthropy.
The real crisis facing our system today is that a succession of lay Chairs and the current CEO, presumed trust but never....never... tried to earn it. But, how have we come to this day --a day when many, many federations want nothing more than a trade association on the cheap? Many reasons: let me offer a few that are and were real and some that were pure fiction. Many of the suggestions and recommedations that follow were transmitted to UJC's leaders over the last 4+ years and routinely and totally ignored.
"Vast Cultural Differences." There were different "cultures" between the merging organizations and, to a limited extent, these were perpetuated through the Merger that created UJC by the creation of Pillars, postponing a full instutitonal integration. But, to those who over the last four years argued thast the "cultural differences" were holding UJC back, let me say: this became but an excuse for stasis. An excuse, nothing more. Leaders worth their salt would have addressed this red herring through integrating staff and programs and integration at the Senior Management level. Instead, the "cultural differences" mantra became the "explanation" for a lack of progress. (And, in fact, if there were "fiefdoms" holding UJC back before the Pillars came down, take a look at UJC today -- new fiefdoms, old wine in new bottles.)
Were the seeds of catastrophic collapse UJC now faces sewn with its birth by merger? I would argue that as Americans we live under the rule of law not men/women. Yet, through acquiescence, and as enablers, we have allowed UJC to operate for a decade without regard to the Merger Agreement or, too often, UJC's own governance but, rather, according to the agendas of a small group of lay Chairs. We turned the "rule of law" on its head. The results, as they say, speak for themselves. Opportunities have been too many to count for federation lay and professional leaders to assert their ownership -- I have cited but a few over the past 15 months -- and time after time, those who could have, just didn't. Many federation CEO's have told me (and others) privately, of course, that "UJC and its leaders are a horror story" or worse, and then publicly acquiesced in the very misjudgments to which they privately objected.
I would still argue that the structure the federations put in place when UJC was created offered great opportunities for UJC to succeed, to be their instrument, their central address -- an organization truly focused on federations' needs. But, too often...and in the last four years (+) way too often...that agenda was twisted and turned to those of the few and without regard for the federations or the cost or potential benefit or lack thereof. The Merger Agreement promised a focus on financial resource development, the current leadership turned UJC away from that focus; the original By-Laws promised great lay involvement (and in its earliest weeks, there was a tremendous time investment in assuring that what were then UJC's Pillars were populated by men and women from Young Leaders to the not-so-young, from across the Continent and with an emphasis on gender equity), the current leadership has somehow convinced themselves that reducing the size of the UJC lay structures across the board would create greater lay involvement and engagement -- that somehow the lack of lay involvement under this logic improves lay engagement. They were, of course, wrong. And, from UJC's birth through the present, there was, first, an unintentional and, now, a willful erasure of institutional memory, a pushing away of those lay persons with historic commitment to the system qua system. No institutional memory, no sense of the values or principles that guided our commitment and work. The result, of course, is clear -- given their miniscule numbers and lack of "reach" or outreach, there is nowhere for the current leadership to turn for continental support. The bridges erected in the Merger have been burned.
And while the bridges have been burning, what has the current leadership been working on these past few weeks: a "new" Dues structure and the "rescue" of 110 Yemenite Jews -- Dues for what and "rescue" from what?
ONAD. If one read the founding Report of the Task Force on Overseas Needs and Assessment, now some nine years old, and forgot about the unfortunate acronym that helped to doom the process that would follow, you would find a well thought-out process for Needs Assessment that became twisted and contorted by UJC's professionals, a few federations and lay leaders for other purposes. The first ONAD Chair, Alan Jaffe, led the Committee through intense discussions the outcome of which was a recommendation that given the reduced core allocations then, and the incredible array of unmet needs, it was not timely to consider imposing new allocations formulas or new program providers. This conclusion was echoed in the Plant Report some six years later as the ONAD "process" was shut down. And today, the unmet needs have increased exponentially and our system has reduced its core support to JAFI and JDC by unheard of percentages while UJC's leaders said and did nothing. UJC "management" made a decision at some point over the past five years that it would not engage in any advocacy for either JDC or JAFI or in support of the needs they serve, the Plant mandate notwithstanding, and they have left our partners (and ORT and the ENP) hanging in the wind. ONAD became totally politicized, pushed by the Chairs, staff and consultants first in one direction, then another...but, always, ending up in the same place. It was a disaster.
There remains a need for a fair and equitable national needs assessment mechanism that would vet our partners' work and form the basis for advocacy and systemic support. This would not be some "Planning Table" at which JDC and JAFI would not sit but a needs analysis and evaluation Committee in which our Partners would be treated as the partners they once were -- with respect, dignity and trust.
Lay and Professional Leadership. From all that I know of them, there is great professional talent pool poorly led, if led at all, at UJC. These are men and women dedicated to Jewish communal life and to the sacred work in which they are engaged. True, there are some paper pushers who have figured out the UJC bureaucracy and play it well, kissing appropriate derrieres to keep or improve their positions. Were UJC the meritocracy of, say, a large law firm, the professional bureaucrats would be gone and the best and brightest would move up. Strange management decisions -- e.g., bifurcate Development from Supplemental Giving while UJC is preaching the program created by Development of "the collaborative fund raising model," deconstructing Rennaissance & Renewal, one of the foundation stones of the new merged organization without governance action, throwing literally millions at UJC-Israel to create an absolutely unnecessary organizational presence there that no federation has asked for (or needs in this economic environmnet or any other) -- the ugly "force out"of senior, caring long-time professionals and para-professionals without compassion, only whining, have contributed to a malaise at 25 Broadway at the worst possible time. It is long past time for a new broom to sweep aside the detritus at the top and make room for a new generation of professional leaders. Think what UJC could be if the Senior professionals at UJC all mirrored William Daroff and others.
On the lay leadership side, the situation is even worse. The UJC lay leadership "circle of trust" is bound so tightly that air cannot penetrate let alone ideas from "the outside." Kanfer and Manning have certainly not created a Kearns-Goodwin Lincolnesque Team of Rivals, but, instead, a team of sychophants from whom a critical word is never heard. Pushed out along the way were NextGen mega-donors anxious to breathe new life into UJC -- like David Fisher and Scott Seligman -- and respected philanthropists like New York's Morris Offit, who resigned his post as the founding Chair of the still-born Center for Jewish Philanthropy when Kanfer would not let Morris do the job for which he was appointed. It has been clear that the current lay leadership group likes being alone at the top, they like pulling the strings, they like being able to bring only their own ideas to the fore, they really like "strutting their hour upon the stage." (Oh, if it had only been but an hour.) They just don't like to share.
Gender. UJC invested real quality time, dollars and energy in confronting the "glass ceiling" in Jewish communal life. Yet, UJC management thought nothing of forcing from the UJC professional ranks over the past four years, the most senior women professionals in our system -- and the UJC lay leaders chose to absolutely ignore the inhuman and "un-Jewish" manner in which these women were treated. It was a stain on UJC from which the organization has not recovered. The great news is that so many of these professionals have found new roles in Jewish communal service where they are making important contributions...and have found the joy they once had working at UJA, CJF and UJC.
The federations. From UJC's beginning I counselled UJC's Chairs and chief professionals to engage with the federation owners. I suggested they work from small successes to bigger ones. The advice, based upon years of experience with federation lay and professional leaders, was consistently and totally ignored. UJC attempted to build engagement based upon so-called "big ideas," and, under the current leadership, "big ideas" never, ever fully thought through, failed. More and more "ideas" were dictated from New York without discussion or process -- the most egregious example being the March 2007 "Reorganization Strategy" roll-out where UJC federation leaders were summoned to New York by Kanfer/Rieger, then told they could neither comment upon nor question the "Strategy" which was read to them. They were then "sent home." I was given a "heads' up" from the CEO that piece-mealed out the "Strategy" to me; when I registered my objection to the impacts of the strategies on FRD assistance to the federations, Rieger chose to attack me and the Development professionals in writing, in a manner unbecoming the professional head of our system, of any charitable system.
In general it has appeared that the federations have failed to hold UJC to the same standards by which they are themselves measured. The "issue" to many has been only cost with no return on investment. Instead of demanding more of UJC, federation after federation, particularly the federations of the West, isolated, and, absent any attempts by UJC's leaders to engage them on anything other than Dues, effectively and de facto have concluded they must withdraw from the System. UJC leaders apparently didn't care so long as Dues were paid. (The Chair of one major Western federation, a most prominent philanthropist, advised me on a visit that "...in the 16 months I have been Chair, no one from the leadership of UJC has reached out to me or my community." I chose not to report this to UJC's leaders as they had come to view such messages as treasonous on my part. I did tell a Large City Executive who clearly passed the message on as Rieger soon advised me that his contact with this lay leader had been so constant that he, Rieger, had been offered the vacant CEO position in that federation [!]. (Such is the fantasy world of Howard Rieger.) Now, when UJC needs lay access to the federations who, one after another, are abandoning the organization, UJC has a void in the number of Large City lay persons to dialogue with those federations, so very many having been driven away by Kanfer, Rieger, Manning and Gelman. The lay cupboard is bare. UJC, hoisted on its own petard. We need new leaders who will rally the federations, work with federation leadership, actually be interested in what is happening in those 157 incredible, exciting places where the work is being done for our People.
If UJC survives the disaster its leaders have created, the next iteration of lay and professional leadership will have a monumental task of building the trust in the national organization that has never...never...been earned, just demanded. This group has assumed all they need do is ask for trust and it will be given. They have done nothing to earn it and, more's the pity, don't feel they have to. And, in this as in all things, they are wrong. The next Chairs and CEO must be committed to building trust as their first obligation.
The Next Generation. As the Toronto GA came to a close, UJC committed itself to engaging with the Next Generation. The next year they said would be dedicated as the Year of the Next Gen. Development came up with Flight -- a program funded by the Fisher Foundation -- bringing future leaders into direct engagement with the best of our philanthropy. And, with "Lunch With A Legend" and the continuation of the beautiful Young Leadership Cabinets begun so long ago by UJA -- that was about it. The supposed commitment turned out to be no more than lip service, ephemeral, breeding cynicism at best.
Focus. Those of you have kept up with these Posts know that I have pleaded with UJC to focus its goals and programs to reflect what federations want and need. It is vital to any understanding of where UJC is (or isn't) today to understand, like a bunch of people with Adult Onset ADD, this leadership group careens from pole to pole, constantly changing direction, constantly without focus. A focused UJC on the federations (rather than on their own ideas which, in the main, drive federations away) will lead to engagement. But, when you don't sit with federations in their home offices and when you don't listen, the organization whithers into irrelevancy. And this one has. "What have you done to earn our trust?" is the threshold question -- the one UJC can't answer. Ask for a Table of Organization and, if one existed, you would readily see that UJC has become about everything....and, therefor, like Seinfeld, about nothing. New leaders capable of bringing focus to the unfocused are needed...yesterday.
The Next Chairs and CEO. The "Search" for Rieger's successor has taken on the trappings of an epic. With periodic reports to the Executive Committee on "progress," but no single candidate, one begins to wonder if outsider and insiders alike may be daunted at the prospect of cleaning up the mess that will be left behind. With disastrous decisions magnified during this period of economic crisis, unilateral irrational decisions (fund the ENP, fund the IAI, partner with the Satmar or our system as we know it is over, etc., etc.), the CEO often absent and unaccounted for, UJC needs a new professional leader now. My fear is that Howard wants to "train" his successor; I can think of nothing worse. That "training" calls for a Professional Advisory Group of let's say: John Ruskay, Steve Nasatir, Mark Terrill, Jeff Klein, Larry Fine, Rick Meyer, Lee Wunsch, Cathy Schwartz, Marcia Hurwitz, Gary Weinstein, Todd Stettner and Jacob Solomon, among others, with Sam Astrof, Bill Daroff and Rob Hyman, for starters.
The debate within the Search process may be between those who want to find a new CEO from outside the system (frequently and mistakenly called thinking "outside the box") and those who believe that a man or woman who knows our system and speaks the lingua franca of federations is the right choice given the challenges of the present and future. ( I recall as if it were yesterday, the disastrous hire of one from outside our system in UJC's earliest days as EVP. She would rise at meetings and announce one incredible discovery after another: "The federations raise money!!!" She was, after some monthis of these epiphanies, let go.) One "finalist," as I have been told, took a senior position in one of our system's most venerated organizations; another appears to be a senior executive in a national non-profit unreated to the federation system. And another a senior official at an Eastern academic institution -- none with any experience with our UJC-federation system (although at least one has served on a federation board). I have read the Job Description (written apparently by at least 6 consultants) and Moshe Rabeinu wouldn't qualify. Let's get real and put the best and brightest in place who knows and understands the challenges he or she will face. And, then, let us pray.
As to successor Chairs. Is there even a Nominating Committee in place? I think the answer is no. And, that's the case even though it's long past time that the federations identify women and men for these positions who come out of a successful federation experience, who understand that collective responsibility is more than a throwaway phrase in a speech but the core value that distinguishes our system, who might actually know federation leaders around the country among all of the City-sizes, that the annual campaign is the lifeblood of our federations from largest to the smallest, not something to be deprecated; that expanding leadership opportunities to include those who might disagree with us to a broad group of women and men leads to engagement and engagement leads to support. Let's amend the By-Laws and reduce the Chairs' terms to two years. And it is long past time to identify Chairs who will engage with federations directly building relationships to secure the future of our system. There is great damage to be undone; no one associated with that damage should be involved in the Nominating or Search processes.
But, I have an alternative. Let's begin the process of recontructing UJC with a clean slate. Bring together the best minds -- professional and lay -- and let's take UJC, or what's left of it, apart, down to its skeleton and then rebuild it. First, discharge the Search and Nominating (if one exists) Committees. Simultaneously, the federations would install a "caretaker" governance proportionally representative of federations by City-size and select an interim CEO. Give these leaders a time certain to report their recommendations on functions, structure, staffing, governance and budget. How do you do this with the current CEO's and Chairs in place? UJC would effectively be placed in "receivership." The federations who share a common commitment to the present and future of our system would call a national Summit, thank the CEO and Chairs for their service and move forward.
____________________________________________________________________
One of my good friends, a caring, dedicated federation leader who thinks about the UJC-Federation relationship, wrote the following last week: "I am not optimistic about UJC in its current form and function but I'm honestly more worried about our individual federations which are being battered by the economy, the impact of which has simply exacerbated systemic changes already in process. If UJC was doing its core business, it would have become (the) thought leader on some of these changes, Instead, it went down a path that neither provided leadership nor vision. For a $37 million enterprise our collective investment needs a bailout." Amen.
Friends, it's time to count down and apply the shock paddles that might jump start UJC from its current state to new life and vitality. This isn't going to happen if we continue to enable as we have over the past four years (+). As someone said recently: It's time for change; in fact, for many of them. We can't await August or November. We have seen five years and close to $200 million of our donors' dollars go up in smoke just in the past four years. Let's take our ownership responsibilities seriously and get on with them .
Rwexler
When I think of the errors that have been made -- whether of commission or omission -- over the past four years plus, none even comes close to ranking with the errors I made over a decade ago. It was then that I, and others, came to the conclusion that UJA and CJF, weakened mainly by the federation system demanding more of the organizations while demanding that they pay less but wanting absolute control of one while underfunding the other, must merge. Many warned me that the end product would only be as strong as the support the federations gave the new entity. I was convinced that that support, once earned, would be constant, even grow. Foolishly, I also believed that the new organization, which in its first decision began the process of undermining the good -- adopting the name "United Jewish Communities" and tossing aside as "part of the past" the most valued brand in Jewish philanthropy.
The real crisis facing our system today is that a succession of lay Chairs and the current CEO, presumed trust but never....never... tried to earn it. But, how have we come to this day --a day when many, many federations want nothing more than a trade association on the cheap? Many reasons: let me offer a few that are and were real and some that were pure fiction. Many of the suggestions and recommedations that follow were transmitted to UJC's leaders over the last 4+ years and routinely and totally ignored.
"Vast Cultural Differences." There were different "cultures" between the merging organizations and, to a limited extent, these were perpetuated through the Merger that created UJC by the creation of Pillars, postponing a full instutitonal integration. But, to those who over the last four years argued thast the "cultural differences" were holding UJC back, let me say: this became but an excuse for stasis. An excuse, nothing more. Leaders worth their salt would have addressed this red herring through integrating staff and programs and integration at the Senior Management level. Instead, the "cultural differences" mantra became the "explanation" for a lack of progress. (And, in fact, if there were "fiefdoms" holding UJC back before the Pillars came down, take a look at UJC today -- new fiefdoms, old wine in new bottles.)
Were the seeds of catastrophic collapse UJC now faces sewn with its birth by merger? I would argue that as Americans we live under the rule of law not men/women. Yet, through acquiescence, and as enablers, we have allowed UJC to operate for a decade without regard to the Merger Agreement or, too often, UJC's own governance but, rather, according to the agendas of a small group of lay Chairs. We turned the "rule of law" on its head. The results, as they say, speak for themselves. Opportunities have been too many to count for federation lay and professional leaders to assert their ownership -- I have cited but a few over the past 15 months -- and time after time, those who could have, just didn't. Many federation CEO's have told me (and others) privately, of course, that "UJC and its leaders are a horror story" or worse, and then publicly acquiesced in the very misjudgments to which they privately objected.
I would still argue that the structure the federations put in place when UJC was created offered great opportunities for UJC to succeed, to be their instrument, their central address -- an organization truly focused on federations' needs. But, too often...and in the last four years (+) way too often...that agenda was twisted and turned to those of the few and without regard for the federations or the cost or potential benefit or lack thereof. The Merger Agreement promised a focus on financial resource development, the current leadership turned UJC away from that focus; the original By-Laws promised great lay involvement (and in its earliest weeks, there was a tremendous time investment in assuring that what were then UJC's Pillars were populated by men and women from Young Leaders to the not-so-young, from across the Continent and with an emphasis on gender equity), the current leadership has somehow convinced themselves that reducing the size of the UJC lay structures across the board would create greater lay involvement and engagement -- that somehow the lack of lay involvement under this logic improves lay engagement. They were, of course, wrong. And, from UJC's birth through the present, there was, first, an unintentional and, now, a willful erasure of institutional memory, a pushing away of those lay persons with historic commitment to the system qua system. No institutional memory, no sense of the values or principles that guided our commitment and work. The result, of course, is clear -- given their miniscule numbers and lack of "reach" or outreach, there is nowhere for the current leadership to turn for continental support. The bridges erected in the Merger have been burned.
And while the bridges have been burning, what has the current leadership been working on these past few weeks: a "new" Dues structure and the "rescue" of 110 Yemenite Jews -- Dues for what and "rescue" from what?
ONAD. If one read the founding Report of the Task Force on Overseas Needs and Assessment, now some nine years old, and forgot about the unfortunate acronym that helped to doom the process that would follow, you would find a well thought-out process for Needs Assessment that became twisted and contorted by UJC's professionals, a few federations and lay leaders for other purposes. The first ONAD Chair, Alan Jaffe, led the Committee through intense discussions the outcome of which was a recommendation that given the reduced core allocations then, and the incredible array of unmet needs, it was not timely to consider imposing new allocations formulas or new program providers. This conclusion was echoed in the Plant Report some six years later as the ONAD "process" was shut down. And today, the unmet needs have increased exponentially and our system has reduced its core support to JAFI and JDC by unheard of percentages while UJC's leaders said and did nothing. UJC "management" made a decision at some point over the past five years that it would not engage in any advocacy for either JDC or JAFI or in support of the needs they serve, the Plant mandate notwithstanding, and they have left our partners (and ORT and the ENP) hanging in the wind. ONAD became totally politicized, pushed by the Chairs, staff and consultants first in one direction, then another...but, always, ending up in the same place. It was a disaster.
There remains a need for a fair and equitable national needs assessment mechanism that would vet our partners' work and form the basis for advocacy and systemic support. This would not be some "Planning Table" at which JDC and JAFI would not sit but a needs analysis and evaluation Committee in which our Partners would be treated as the partners they once were -- with respect, dignity and trust.
Lay and Professional Leadership. From all that I know of them, there is great professional talent pool poorly led, if led at all, at UJC. These are men and women dedicated to Jewish communal life and to the sacred work in which they are engaged. True, there are some paper pushers who have figured out the UJC bureaucracy and play it well, kissing appropriate derrieres to keep or improve their positions. Were UJC the meritocracy of, say, a large law firm, the professional bureaucrats would be gone and the best and brightest would move up. Strange management decisions -- e.g., bifurcate Development from Supplemental Giving while UJC is preaching the program created by Development of "the collaborative fund raising model," deconstructing Rennaissance & Renewal, one of the foundation stones of the new merged organization without governance action, throwing literally millions at UJC-Israel to create an absolutely unnecessary organizational presence there that no federation has asked for (or needs in this economic environmnet or any other) -- the ugly "force out"of senior, caring long-time professionals and para-professionals without compassion, only whining, have contributed to a malaise at 25 Broadway at the worst possible time. It is long past time for a new broom to sweep aside the detritus at the top and make room for a new generation of professional leaders. Think what UJC could be if the Senior professionals at UJC all mirrored William Daroff and others.
On the lay leadership side, the situation is even worse. The UJC lay leadership "circle of trust" is bound so tightly that air cannot penetrate let alone ideas from "the outside." Kanfer and Manning have certainly not created a Kearns-Goodwin Lincolnesque Team of Rivals, but, instead, a team of sychophants from whom a critical word is never heard. Pushed out along the way were NextGen mega-donors anxious to breathe new life into UJC -- like David Fisher and Scott Seligman -- and respected philanthropists like New York's Morris Offit, who resigned his post as the founding Chair of the still-born Center for Jewish Philanthropy when Kanfer would not let Morris do the job for which he was appointed. It has been clear that the current lay leadership group likes being alone at the top, they like pulling the strings, they like being able to bring only their own ideas to the fore, they really like "strutting their hour upon the stage." (Oh, if it had only been but an hour.) They just don't like to share.
Gender. UJC invested real quality time, dollars and energy in confronting the "glass ceiling" in Jewish communal life. Yet, UJC management thought nothing of forcing from the UJC professional ranks over the past four years, the most senior women professionals in our system -- and the UJC lay leaders chose to absolutely ignore the inhuman and "un-Jewish" manner in which these women were treated. It was a stain on UJC from which the organization has not recovered. The great news is that so many of these professionals have found new roles in Jewish communal service where they are making important contributions...and have found the joy they once had working at UJA, CJF and UJC.
The federations. From UJC's beginning I counselled UJC's Chairs and chief professionals to engage with the federation owners. I suggested they work from small successes to bigger ones. The advice, based upon years of experience with federation lay and professional leaders, was consistently and totally ignored. UJC attempted to build engagement based upon so-called "big ideas," and, under the current leadership, "big ideas" never, ever fully thought through, failed. More and more "ideas" were dictated from New York without discussion or process -- the most egregious example being the March 2007 "Reorganization Strategy" roll-out where UJC federation leaders were summoned to New York by Kanfer/Rieger, then told they could neither comment upon nor question the "Strategy" which was read to them. They were then "sent home." I was given a "heads' up" from the CEO that piece-mealed out the "Strategy" to me; when I registered my objection to the impacts of the strategies on FRD assistance to the federations, Rieger chose to attack me and the Development professionals in writing, in a manner unbecoming the professional head of our system, of any charitable system.
In general it has appeared that the federations have failed to hold UJC to the same standards by which they are themselves measured. The "issue" to many has been only cost with no return on investment. Instead of demanding more of UJC, federation after federation, particularly the federations of the West, isolated, and, absent any attempts by UJC's leaders to engage them on anything other than Dues, effectively and de facto have concluded they must withdraw from the System. UJC leaders apparently didn't care so long as Dues were paid. (The Chair of one major Western federation, a most prominent philanthropist, advised me on a visit that "...in the 16 months I have been Chair, no one from the leadership of UJC has reached out to me or my community." I chose not to report this to UJC's leaders as they had come to view such messages as treasonous on my part. I did tell a Large City Executive who clearly passed the message on as Rieger soon advised me that his contact with this lay leader had been so constant that he, Rieger, had been offered the vacant CEO position in that federation [!]. (Such is the fantasy world of Howard Rieger.) Now, when UJC needs lay access to the federations who, one after another, are abandoning the organization, UJC has a void in the number of Large City lay persons to dialogue with those federations, so very many having been driven away by Kanfer, Rieger, Manning and Gelman. The lay cupboard is bare. UJC, hoisted on its own petard. We need new leaders who will rally the federations, work with federation leadership, actually be interested in what is happening in those 157 incredible, exciting places where the work is being done for our People.
If UJC survives the disaster its leaders have created, the next iteration of lay and professional leadership will have a monumental task of building the trust in the national organization that has never...never...been earned, just demanded. This group has assumed all they need do is ask for trust and it will be given. They have done nothing to earn it and, more's the pity, don't feel they have to. And, in this as in all things, they are wrong. The next Chairs and CEO must be committed to building trust as their first obligation.
The Next Generation. As the Toronto GA came to a close, UJC committed itself to engaging with the Next Generation. The next year they said would be dedicated as the Year of the Next Gen. Development came up with Flight -- a program funded by the Fisher Foundation -- bringing future leaders into direct engagement with the best of our philanthropy. And, with "Lunch With A Legend" and the continuation of the beautiful Young Leadership Cabinets begun so long ago by UJA -- that was about it. The supposed commitment turned out to be no more than lip service, ephemeral, breeding cynicism at best.
Focus. Those of you have kept up with these Posts know that I have pleaded with UJC to focus its goals and programs to reflect what federations want and need. It is vital to any understanding of where UJC is (or isn't) today to understand, like a bunch of people with Adult Onset ADD, this leadership group careens from pole to pole, constantly changing direction, constantly without focus. A focused UJC on the federations (rather than on their own ideas which, in the main, drive federations away) will lead to engagement. But, when you don't sit with federations in their home offices and when you don't listen, the organization whithers into irrelevancy. And this one has. "What have you done to earn our trust?" is the threshold question -- the one UJC can't answer. Ask for a Table of Organization and, if one existed, you would readily see that UJC has become about everything....and, therefor, like Seinfeld, about nothing. New leaders capable of bringing focus to the unfocused are needed...yesterday.
The Next Chairs and CEO. The "Search" for Rieger's successor has taken on the trappings of an epic. With periodic reports to the Executive Committee on "progress," but no single candidate, one begins to wonder if outsider and insiders alike may be daunted at the prospect of cleaning up the mess that will be left behind. With disastrous decisions magnified during this period of economic crisis, unilateral irrational decisions (fund the ENP, fund the IAI, partner with the Satmar or our system as we know it is over, etc., etc.), the CEO often absent and unaccounted for, UJC needs a new professional leader now. My fear is that Howard wants to "train" his successor; I can think of nothing worse. That "training" calls for a Professional Advisory Group of let's say: John Ruskay, Steve Nasatir, Mark Terrill, Jeff Klein, Larry Fine, Rick Meyer, Lee Wunsch, Cathy Schwartz, Marcia Hurwitz, Gary Weinstein, Todd Stettner and Jacob Solomon, among others, with Sam Astrof, Bill Daroff and Rob Hyman, for starters.
The debate within the Search process may be between those who want to find a new CEO from outside the system (frequently and mistakenly called thinking "outside the box") and those who believe that a man or woman who knows our system and speaks the lingua franca of federations is the right choice given the challenges of the present and future. ( I recall as if it were yesterday, the disastrous hire of one from outside our system in UJC's earliest days as EVP. She would rise at meetings and announce one incredible discovery after another: "The federations raise money!!!" She was, after some monthis of these epiphanies, let go.) One "finalist," as I have been told, took a senior position in one of our system's most venerated organizations; another appears to be a senior executive in a national non-profit unreated to the federation system. And another a senior official at an Eastern academic institution -- none with any experience with our UJC-federation system (although at least one has served on a federation board). I have read the Job Description (written apparently by at least 6 consultants) and Moshe Rabeinu wouldn't qualify. Let's get real and put the best and brightest in place who knows and understands the challenges he or she will face. And, then, let us pray.
As to successor Chairs. Is there even a Nominating Committee in place? I think the answer is no. And, that's the case even though it's long past time that the federations identify women and men for these positions who come out of a successful federation experience, who understand that collective responsibility is more than a throwaway phrase in a speech but the core value that distinguishes our system, who might actually know federation leaders around the country among all of the City-sizes, that the annual campaign is the lifeblood of our federations from largest to the smallest, not something to be deprecated; that expanding leadership opportunities to include those who might disagree with us to a broad group of women and men leads to engagement and engagement leads to support. Let's amend the By-Laws and reduce the Chairs' terms to two years. And it is long past time to identify Chairs who will engage with federations directly building relationships to secure the future of our system. There is great damage to be undone; no one associated with that damage should be involved in the Nominating or Search processes.
But, I have an alternative. Let's begin the process of recontructing UJC with a clean slate. Bring together the best minds -- professional and lay -- and let's take UJC, or what's left of it, apart, down to its skeleton and then rebuild it. First, discharge the Search and Nominating (if one exists) Committees. Simultaneously, the federations would install a "caretaker" governance proportionally representative of federations by City-size and select an interim CEO. Give these leaders a time certain to report their recommendations on functions, structure, staffing, governance and budget. How do you do this with the current CEO's and Chairs in place? UJC would effectively be placed in "receivership." The federations who share a common commitment to the present and future of our system would call a national Summit, thank the CEO and Chairs for their service and move forward.
____________________________________________________________________
One of my good friends, a caring, dedicated federation leader who thinks about the UJC-Federation relationship, wrote the following last week: "I am not optimistic about UJC in its current form and function but I'm honestly more worried about our individual federations which are being battered by the economy, the impact of which has simply exacerbated systemic changes already in process. If UJC was doing its core business, it would have become (the) thought leader on some of these changes, Instead, it went down a path that neither provided leadership nor vision. For a $37 million enterprise our collective investment needs a bailout." Amen.
Friends, it's time to count down and apply the shock paddles that might jump start UJC from its current state to new life and vitality. This isn't going to happen if we continue to enable as we have over the past four years (+). As someone said recently: It's time for change; in fact, for many of them. We can't await August or November. We have seen five years and close to $200 million of our donors' dollars go up in smoke just in the past four years. Let's take our ownership responsibilities seriously and get on with them .
Rwexler
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
NO JOKES
So, another April 1 has arrived. It's April Fools Day; sometimes called All Fools Day. Frequently, there are pranks -- some Commentators to this Blog love the old chestnut: "you're fly is open." Har-de-har-har. I won't get into the Papal History that has led to the celebration of this Day. Instead, I have some stories; true and not very funny.
~ Where did that money go? You probably missed it, as UJC issued no Briefings and this story evaded Howard's View, but at the end of the War in Gaza earlier in 2009, the Jewish Agency returned $400,000 (or $500,000) in unspent funds allocated to it by the federations through UJC. No doubt JDC did as well, if they had an unexpended surplus. But what about the Israel Trauma Coalition and the Israel Advocacy Initiative -- did they return unspent Gaza War emergency funds or did someone at UJC say: "Keep the change?" Where is the accounting from UJC? (Later JAFI [and JDC] received significant new grants to aid the victims of terror -- for JAFI over $1.1 million.) The UJC was good enough to advise me that the Israel Trauma Coalition is paid by Invoice, without advance.
~ Speaking of Accounting. By all reports from the UJC Marketing and Communications Department and the body-counters at UJC, GA08 in Jerusalem was an astounding success. As recently as UJC's Annual Report the number of GA "participants" was quoted once again at 4,500 -- more people than attended any Florida Marlins baseball game in 2008. With sponsors as well, this must have made the Jerusalem General Assembly an incredible financial success. Maybe profits could be used to reduce UJC's Budget request of federations or, perhaps, the profits could be applied to reduce the Registration fee for the 2010 Washington DC GA now projected at $700 per Registrant -- that's right, $700 per Registrant (Or, maybe it's $695, that's the ticket!!). Where is the accounting from UJC?
~The UJC Budget & Finance Committee and Executive Committee. Hey, all of you who are planning to attend the April 6 UJC Budget & Finance and Executive Committees joint meeting in person or by phone -- it appears your attendance, surprise, may not be necessary. Seems that communities seeking Dues relief of 20% or less are being told by UJC leadership they need not be concerned as UJC will be cutting Dues by 20%. Apparently that decision has been made somewhere at UJC, just not by you. Now, maybe, there is always a chance, the Budget won't be cut by 20%, that somehow UJC's leaders have convinced themselves that they can just implement by fiat an "off the top" of the JAFI/JDC "core allocation," a 20% charge, and, abracadabra, all Budget/Dues issues are "solved." Maybe you can ask ahead of time for copies of the letters from the Large Intermediate Federations or a group of Large City Federations or individual federations demanding Budget and Dues reductions so that you can understand without the intervention of the UJC interpreters the level of Federation rejection of UJC's cost.
Or, maybe, the Members of the UJC Budget & Finance Committee will object that they have yet to receive a copy of the Draft Budget -- now a mere three business days in advance of the meeting. Are UJC's leaders holding the Draft Budget back for fear that if they had sent it out, let's say...yesterday...(1) the Budget & Finance Committee members might have a chance to analyze it and ask some of the hard questions this leadership either wants to avoid or for which they have no answers; or (2) Federation owners might have a chance to review the Draft before the meeting and instruct their members on the Committee to vote "NO?" Blogger's Alert -- I apologize to UJC's leaders. The Budget Books arrived today. (The fact that they arrived on April 1 should be no reflection on the Budget's substance.) In all events, the Budget can now be anayzed for its content -- a cursory reading does not do this work justice.
~ There are always the Yemenis. You will recall that three weeks ago, the UJC CEO, in a moment of either panic or hysteria, wrote one of the premier Large City Executives screaming that if the federation system didn't immediately "rescue" 110 Yemeni Jews and transport them to the Satmar community in New York, our system would be proved worthless and we would have made a mockery of our commitment to social service. The next week, after a Post on the matter in this Blog, Rieger and his clique, attempting to hide behind the false moniker "Anonymous." attacked me with a venom unbecoming even them. Turned out: "never mind." The Yemenite Jews, while in a precarious circumstance according to outsiders, appeared comfortable in remaining in Yemen under the government's and tribal protection, until they could maximize the value of their apartments. While Rieger was driving for funding and Visas to "rescue the Yemeni Jews" by Passover, in fact the Yemenite Jews were planning their Seders and New York UJA has allocated a few thousand dollars to help fund the Seders.
A Study Group organized by the Israeli Foreign Ministry and including an Executive Committee leader of the New York UJA-Federation visited Yemen and concluded, in part, in a written Report (the "Report") that the remnant of the Yemeni Jewish community could freely leave for Israel, America or any other country. The Report also stated, in pertinent part:
"Sheikh Mohammed (the tribal leader whose efforts truly "partner" with the Yemen Jewish community) stated that the current delay in passports may be because the government has been embarrassed by the publicity suggesting that the Jews of Yemen are not safe and need to be evacuated. He found that insulting and embarrassing for the country, particularly as he is on good terms with the community and is making considerable efforts to protect them and accommodate their needs... The Sheikh made it absolutely clear to the community that he would facilitate the acquiring of passports and that anyone is free to travel and leave the country at any time, whether to Israel, America or any country of their choosing." (emphasis added)
In the meantime, this writer had been accused of responsibility for the death of the Jewish community of Yemen, of being a Nazi, an egomaniacal psychopath and some other nice stuff. Questions were raised as to whether my wife and children might abandon me, among other intelligent comments. All because my intuition was correct and UJC was, at the least, embarrassed. When UJC's "spokesman" was questioned by a reporter for the Forward whether Rieger had a comment on the Report, the response was that Howard wasn't sure he had read it. The reporter noted that Rieger was among the few open copy recipients. Gosh, didn't read the Report, probably didn't read this Blog even as he commented anonymously to it...I'm thinking he doesn't read; certainly can't apologize.
I am reminded of Laurel and Hardy's famous line which must resonate within UJC with the regularity of a metronome: "Another fine mess you've gotten us into..."
So, April Fools' everybody.
Rwexler
~ Where did that money go? You probably missed it, as UJC issued no Briefings and this story evaded Howard's View, but at the end of the War in Gaza earlier in 2009, the Jewish Agency returned $400,000 (or $500,000) in unspent funds allocated to it by the federations through UJC. No doubt JDC did as well, if they had an unexpended surplus. But what about the Israel Trauma Coalition and the Israel Advocacy Initiative -- did they return unspent Gaza War emergency funds or did someone at UJC say: "Keep the change?" Where is the accounting from UJC? (Later JAFI [and JDC] received significant new grants to aid the victims of terror -- for JAFI over $1.1 million.) The UJC was good enough to advise me that the Israel Trauma Coalition is paid by Invoice, without advance.
~ Speaking of Accounting. By all reports from the UJC Marketing and Communications Department and the body-counters at UJC, GA08 in Jerusalem was an astounding success. As recently as UJC's Annual Report the number of GA "participants" was quoted once again at 4,500 -- more people than attended any Florida Marlins baseball game in 2008. With sponsors as well, this must have made the Jerusalem General Assembly an incredible financial success. Maybe profits could be used to reduce UJC's Budget request of federations or, perhaps, the profits could be applied to reduce the Registration fee for the 2010 Washington DC GA now projected at $700 per Registrant -- that's right, $700 per Registrant (Or, maybe it's $695, that's the ticket!!). Where is the accounting from UJC?
~The UJC Budget & Finance Committee and Executive Committee. Hey, all of you who are planning to attend the April 6 UJC Budget & Finance and Executive Committees joint meeting in person or by phone -- it appears your attendance, surprise, may not be necessary. Seems that communities seeking Dues relief of 20% or less are being told by UJC leadership they need not be concerned as UJC will be cutting Dues by 20%. Apparently that decision has been made somewhere at UJC, just not by you. Now, maybe, there is always a chance, the Budget won't be cut by 20%, that somehow UJC's leaders have convinced themselves that they can just implement by fiat an "off the top" of the JAFI/JDC "core allocation," a 20% charge, and, abracadabra, all Budget/Dues issues are "solved." Maybe you can ask ahead of time for copies of the letters from the Large Intermediate Federations or a group of Large City Federations or individual federations demanding Budget and Dues reductions so that you can understand without the intervention of the UJC interpreters the level of Federation rejection of UJC's cost.
Or, maybe, the Members of the UJC Budget & Finance Committee will object that they have yet to receive a copy of the Draft Budget -- now a mere three business days in advance of the meeting. Are UJC's leaders holding the Draft Budget back for fear that if they had sent it out, let's say...yesterday...(1) the Budget & Finance Committee members might have a chance to analyze it and ask some of the hard questions this leadership either wants to avoid or for which they have no answers; or (2) Federation owners might have a chance to review the Draft before the meeting and instruct their members on the Committee to vote "NO?" Blogger's Alert -- I apologize to UJC's leaders. The Budget Books arrived today. (The fact that they arrived on April 1 should be no reflection on the Budget's substance.) In all events, the Budget can now be anayzed for its content -- a cursory reading does not do this work justice.
~ There are always the Yemenis. You will recall that three weeks ago, the UJC CEO, in a moment of either panic or hysteria, wrote one of the premier Large City Executives screaming that if the federation system didn't immediately "rescue" 110 Yemeni Jews and transport them to the Satmar community in New York, our system would be proved worthless and we would have made a mockery of our commitment to social service. The next week, after a Post on the matter in this Blog, Rieger and his clique, attempting to hide behind the false moniker "Anonymous." attacked me with a venom unbecoming even them. Turned out: "never mind." The Yemenite Jews, while in a precarious circumstance according to outsiders, appeared comfortable in remaining in Yemen under the government's and tribal protection, until they could maximize the value of their apartments. While Rieger was driving for funding and Visas to "rescue the Yemeni Jews" by Passover, in fact the Yemenite Jews were planning their Seders and New York UJA has allocated a few thousand dollars to help fund the Seders.
A Study Group organized by the Israeli Foreign Ministry and including an Executive Committee leader of the New York UJA-Federation visited Yemen and concluded, in part, in a written Report (the "Report") that the remnant of the Yemeni Jewish community could freely leave for Israel, America or any other country. The Report also stated, in pertinent part:
"Sheikh Mohammed (the tribal leader whose efforts truly "partner" with the Yemen Jewish community) stated that the current delay in passports may be because the government has been embarrassed by the publicity suggesting that the Jews of Yemen are not safe and need to be evacuated. He found that insulting and embarrassing for the country, particularly as he is on good terms with the community and is making considerable efforts to protect them and accommodate their needs... The Sheikh made it absolutely clear to the community that he would facilitate the acquiring of passports and that anyone is free to travel and leave the country at any time, whether to Israel, America or any country of their choosing." (emphasis added)
In the meantime, this writer had been accused of responsibility for the death of the Jewish community of Yemen, of being a Nazi, an egomaniacal psychopath and some other nice stuff. Questions were raised as to whether my wife and children might abandon me, among other intelligent comments. All because my intuition was correct and UJC was, at the least, embarrassed. When UJC's "spokesman" was questioned by a reporter for the Forward whether Rieger had a comment on the Report, the response was that Howard wasn't sure he had read it. The reporter noted that Rieger was among the few open copy recipients. Gosh, didn't read the Report, probably didn't read this Blog even as he commented anonymously to it...I'm thinking he doesn't read; certainly can't apologize.
I am reminded of Laurel and Hardy's famous line which must resonate within UJC with the regularity of a metronome: "Another fine mess you've gotten us into..."
So, April Fools' everybody.
Rwexler
UPDATES AND MISCELLANY
A few updates are in order:
~ The UJC 2010 Budget -- Well, Blog sources report that the Budget that was to be proposed to the UJC Budget & Finance Committee was to reflect an additional $2 million dollars in cuts. So, what happened? Well, the CEO, theretofore disengaged from the process, entered the scrum and determined, as a matter of something called "CEO privilege" that he would unilaterally overrule the professional and senior management "process" and restore $2 million. No thought, no discussion permitted. No lame duck he; just lame.
~ "Will Israel Cease to Exist?" -- Apparently trying to promote his book, The Late Great State of Israel, an "author," Aaron Klein produced a brief piece for The Daily Beast. Klein's thesis appears to be that Israel should not engage in diplomacy, and should not protect herself for if Israel does either, the State will..."cease to exist." Bizarre stuff, indeed.
~ Challenge -- For more substantive reading get your hands on the Winter-Spring 2009 Journal of Jewish Communal Service. The entire issue is dedicated to The Changing Paradigm of Jewish Philanthropy. Some provocative dialogue on issues that should, if they don't already, concern us all and challenge us to new thinking and to an examination of, at the least, new ideas. The issue, sponsored by the Jewish Funders Network, has a natural bias -- the articles, in the main, suggest that there are only one or two answers to "...the challenge of philanthropic change" -- nonetheless the federation system (except in the instance of a dialogue between John Ruskay and Jeffrey Solomon) while ignored, needs to come to rise to the challenge of new models of giving. I would suggest the federations have -- particularly through the collaborative giving model -- but no one from UJC apparently was given (or accepted) the opportunity to challenge the assumptions of most of the articles. Worth the read certainly.
~ "And...more on that Budget" -- You will recall that we have pointed out that the UJC Treasurer and Budget Chair, Michael Gelman, told the Committee that a compensation reduction at the top of the UJC professional pyramid was considered and rejected as "bad for morale." Maybe the following will be "bad for morale." A mid-sized Chicago law firm, Shefsky & Froelich, where I have a number of friends and some former partners, announced last Friday, as reported in Crain's Chicago Business, that compensation cuts "...ranging from 5% for non-lawyer staff to 30% for partners...are designed to avoid more layoffs..." Imagine, a law firm shows more compassion than our non-profit national Jewish organization. Hard to believe? Unfortunately, not really.
Shabbat shalom.
Rwexler
~ The UJC 2010 Budget -- Well, Blog sources report that the Budget that was to be proposed to the UJC Budget & Finance Committee was to reflect an additional $2 million dollars in cuts. So, what happened? Well, the CEO, theretofore disengaged from the process, entered the scrum and determined, as a matter of something called "CEO privilege" that he would unilaterally overrule the professional and senior management "process" and restore $2 million. No thought, no discussion permitted. No lame duck he; just lame.
~ "Will Israel Cease to Exist?" -- Apparently trying to promote his book, The Late Great State of Israel, an "author," Aaron Klein produced a brief piece for The Daily Beast. Klein's thesis appears to be that Israel should not engage in diplomacy, and should not protect herself for if Israel does either, the State will..."cease to exist." Bizarre stuff, indeed.
~ Challenge -- For more substantive reading get your hands on the Winter-Spring 2009 Journal of Jewish Communal Service. The entire issue is dedicated to The Changing Paradigm of Jewish Philanthropy. Some provocative dialogue on issues that should, if they don't already, concern us all and challenge us to new thinking and to an examination of, at the least, new ideas. The issue, sponsored by the Jewish Funders Network, has a natural bias -- the articles, in the main, suggest that there are only one or two answers to "...the challenge of philanthropic change" -- nonetheless the federation system (except in the instance of a dialogue between John Ruskay and Jeffrey Solomon) while ignored, needs to come to rise to the challenge of new models of giving. I would suggest the federations have -- particularly through the collaborative giving model -- but no one from UJC apparently was given (or accepted) the opportunity to challenge the assumptions of most of the articles. Worth the read certainly.
~ "And...more on that Budget" -- You will recall that we have pointed out that the UJC Treasurer and Budget Chair, Michael Gelman, told the Committee that a compensation reduction at the top of the UJC professional pyramid was considered and rejected as "bad for morale." Maybe the following will be "bad for morale." A mid-sized Chicago law firm, Shefsky & Froelich, where I have a number of friends and some former partners, announced last Friday, as reported in Crain's Chicago Business, that compensation cuts "...ranging from 5% for non-lawyer staff to 30% for partners...are designed to avoid more layoffs..." Imagine, a law firm shows more compassion than our non-profit national Jewish organization. Hard to believe? Unfortunately, not really.
Shabbat shalom.
Rwexler
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
A REALLY "BIG IDEA"
LEADERSHIP BRIEFING -- CONFIDENTIAL
UJC today announced a new partnership with the Neturei Karta to bring 1,500,000 Russian Israeli Jews to the United States from the State of Israel. An unnamed most senior UJC official stated: "When Israeli Russians began to live in fear for their futures in Israel, we had no choice but to rescue them -- otherwise our system would stand for nothing...absolutely nothing. We thank the Neturei Karta, our partner, for bringing this terrible situation to our attention." A Rebbe for Neturei Karta told this Reporter: "Keiner zet nisht zayn eigenerm boyker." (A translator reported: "No one sees his own hunchback." When asked for further clarification, the Neturi Karta Rebbe winked.)
A Jewish Agency spokesman expressed incredulity. The new Prime Minister asked: "Are UJC's leaders nuts?" Howard's View sprung this surprise with typical eloquence: "We finally found our Big Idea. Our philanthropy brought these Jews from captivity to freedom in Israel; now, with the federations' help, and through our partnership with Neturei Karta, we can bring them back to captivity in the midst of our freedom in America...land of the free, home of the brave. The Voice of One, the Power of Many; or the Voice of Many, the Power of One. Anywhere a Jew is in trouble, UJC will be there for them...unless they are in Galveston or Houston."
Asked to estimate the cost, the most senior UJC professional responded, "...given the excellent job done in Israel, we think we can resettle them here for about $50,000 a person." When told that would be a total cost of $7.5 billion, Rieger replied, "No, you're way off, that's no more than $75 million and the Neturei Karta are putting up $2.5 million." We sat UJC leadership down and explained: 1.5 million Russians x $50,000 each = $7.5 billion." Two UJC leaders passed out, one said, "uh oh," and Joe Kanfer stated: "I'll raise that personally. I'll travel the country talking to mega-donors. It will be a snap to raise this money." Then the other UJC leader passed out. (Luckily, UJC has only five leaders.) The most senior UJC professional said: $75 million, $7.5 billion, what's the difference? The federations have it and we'll get it." And, with that, Kanfer fainted.
A political head of Israeli Russian Jewry responded: "Maybe 500,000 want to leave but that's all -- and they want to go back to Mother Russia -- or they did until the economy cratered there. Between the Neturei Karta, who hate Israel more than they apparently love God, and UJC, who just want to be able to claim they accomplished something...anything...I think Israel's Russian community will be fine right here. Besides, who is going to buy their apartments and homes?"
UJC announced:"Our goal is to get all 1,500,000 here for Pesach. Seders have been arranged all over Williamsburg." When told that Pesach is but two weeks away, UJC responded: "Then we had better hurry up." The Neturei Karta announced that in anticipation of the arrival of the Russian Israelis, they would forebear from burning Israeli flags for the next month freeing their entire male population to supervise their wives' cleanup of their homes so as to welcome the "new Americans." A nahr bleit a nahr or something like that. (The translator had left.)
A U.S. State Department official, demanding anonymity, asserted, "This is a big, big surprise for us. I'm not sure that we even have enough Visa forms. Do they know we're in a recession?" Asked to elaborate, he handed this reporter a hand-printed statement: "Even though we at the U.S. State Department love Jews today as we always have, there is no f'___'in chance one of these people are getting into the good old U.S. of A., let alone 1.5 million." He closed with a message for the Neturei Karta and UJC: "Mentsch tracht. Gott lacht."
Asked to respond, Howard Rieger stated: "Once we get the Russians here, the Ethiopians will be next." Then Rieger was asked: "What about the 110 Yemeni Jews?" He replied: "What Yemeni Jews? What are you talking about? We have nothing to do with Yemen." This reporter was escorted from the room.
April Fools -- all of them. But, be careful when at your Seders you open your door to let Eliyahu in.
Rwexler
UJC today announced a new partnership with the Neturei Karta to bring 1,500,000 Russian Israeli Jews to the United States from the State of Israel. An unnamed most senior UJC official stated: "When Israeli Russians began to live in fear for their futures in Israel, we had no choice but to rescue them -- otherwise our system would stand for nothing...absolutely nothing. We thank the Neturei Karta, our partner, for bringing this terrible situation to our attention." A Rebbe for Neturei Karta told this Reporter: "Keiner zet nisht zayn eigenerm boyker." (A translator reported: "No one sees his own hunchback." When asked for further clarification, the Neturi Karta Rebbe winked.)
A Jewish Agency spokesman expressed incredulity. The new Prime Minister asked: "Are UJC's leaders nuts?" Howard's View sprung this surprise with typical eloquence: "We finally found our Big Idea. Our philanthropy brought these Jews from captivity to freedom in Israel; now, with the federations' help, and through our partnership with Neturei Karta, we can bring them back to captivity in the midst of our freedom in America...land of the free, home of the brave. The Voice of One, the Power of Many; or the Voice of Many, the Power of One. Anywhere a Jew is in trouble, UJC will be there for them...unless they are in Galveston or Houston."
Asked to estimate the cost, the most senior UJC professional responded, "...given the excellent job done in Israel, we think we can resettle them here for about $50,000 a person." When told that would be a total cost of $7.5 billion, Rieger replied, "No, you're way off, that's no more than $75 million and the Neturei Karta are putting up $2.5 million." We sat UJC leadership down and explained: 1.5 million Russians x $50,000 each = $7.5 billion." Two UJC leaders passed out, one said, "uh oh," and Joe Kanfer stated: "I'll raise that personally. I'll travel the country talking to mega-donors. It will be a snap to raise this money." Then the other UJC leader passed out. (Luckily, UJC has only five leaders.) The most senior UJC professional said: $75 million, $7.5 billion, what's the difference? The federations have it and we'll get it." And, with that, Kanfer fainted.
A political head of Israeli Russian Jewry responded: "Maybe 500,000 want to leave but that's all -- and they want to go back to Mother Russia -- or they did until the economy cratered there. Between the Neturei Karta, who hate Israel more than they apparently love God, and UJC, who just want to be able to claim they accomplished something...anything...I think Israel's Russian community will be fine right here. Besides, who is going to buy their apartments and homes?"
UJC announced:"Our goal is to get all 1,500,000 here for Pesach. Seders have been arranged all over Williamsburg." When told that Pesach is but two weeks away, UJC responded: "Then we had better hurry up." The Neturei Karta announced that in anticipation of the arrival of the Russian Israelis, they would forebear from burning Israeli flags for the next month freeing their entire male population to supervise their wives' cleanup of their homes so as to welcome the "new Americans." A nahr bleit a nahr or something like that. (The translator had left.)
A U.S. State Department official, demanding anonymity, asserted, "This is a big, big surprise for us. I'm not sure that we even have enough Visa forms. Do they know we're in a recession?" Asked to elaborate, he handed this reporter a hand-printed statement: "Even though we at the U.S. State Department love Jews today as we always have, there is no f'___'in chance one of these people are getting into the good old U.S. of A., let alone 1.5 million." He closed with a message for the Neturei Karta and UJC: "Mentsch tracht. Gott lacht."
Asked to respond, Howard Rieger stated: "Once we get the Russians here, the Ethiopians will be next." Then Rieger was asked: "What about the 110 Yemeni Jews?" He replied: "What Yemeni Jews? What are you talking about? We have nothing to do with Yemen." This reporter was escorted from the room.
April Fools -- all of them. But, be careful when at your Seders you open your door to let Eliyahu in.
Rwexler
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
