JUXTAPOSITIONS

On August 31, Haaretz.com had the following headline: Olmert Indicted; Madonna Arrives in Israel. Perhaps it's just me, but the juxtaposition of these two news items tells us quite a bit about priorities, doesn't it?

We all received the following "Don't Miss" from UJC: Don't Miss American Idol Finalist Elliot Yamin at the 2009 GA." Is this the best we can do? Alright class, please compare and contrast American Idol and the 2009 GA. Make any sense? Exciting? Don't miss or miss? If Elliot Yamin is that good, make him a "Hero?"

Another juxtaposition: Rieger leaves; Silverman arrives. Hope springs eternal. Like being a Cubs fan -- maybe this year (because we sure can't wait 'till next year.)??

And, another: I wished Howard Rieger well ("BYE") and get an Anonymous (but you can probably guess who it was from) Comment that includes the following: "You are pathetic, Wexler...and I'm not the only one who thinks so." Beautiful juxtaposition. Accused me of in personam attacks citing none, then offers almost verbatim anonymous attacks on me from others this guy offered in the past. When Anonymous learned his attempt at a Comment had been rejected, came another "Anonymous" assault -- I am accused of being a "dangerous moron...a scumbag (and) a monster." That Comment was rejected as well (even as they proved that the writer[s] may not understand in personam attacks even as they commit them) so he wrote again to tell me how many of his "colleagues" consider me "... mentally unhinged." That Comment was rejected.

These maniacal Comment attempts needed to be juxtaposed with Maureen Dowd's piece in the August 26 New York Times: "The Internet was supposed to be the prolix paradise where there would be no more gatekeepers and everyone would finally have their say. We would express ourselves freely at any level, high or low, with no inhibitions." Dowd continued: "Yet, in this infinite realm of truth-telling, many want to hide. Who are these people prepared to tell you what they think, but not who they are. What is the mentality that lets them get in our face while wearing a mask?"

So, when I receive an "Anonymous" Comment that demands that I publish all Comments as the ones rejected are motivated by the same "anger" I have demonstrated in the Posts on this Blog, I just scratch my head. I fully understand that someone who has been part of UJC's failures these past five years would perceive that they have the right to respond to Posts that criticize what I perceive to be mismanagement, failure of focus, failure of vision and failure of understanding UJC's mission vis-a-vis the federations that own UJC as mere "anger" justifying venal, unreasoned personal attacks. But, these "Commentators/haters" as Ms. Dowd observed "get in our face while wearing a mask" and, somehow, they believe this gives them some "right" to have their unreasoned assaults on logic (and usually spelling) appear on these pages. Sorry, not going to happen.

Juxtapose intent with execution. One of my friends, a Federation CEO tells me the following story: He has served in his CEO role for ten months. He just received a package from UJC with a nice note -- "Welcome to our system. Because you are new to federation, we have enclosed a booklet we have prepared on how to be a federation chief executive officer." Intentions -- great; execution, not so much.

Rwexler

OWNERSHIP AND REPRESENTATION.

In response to my Post on UJC'S Court Jews, I received an Anonymous (of course) Comment that raised a fundamental question:

As you were there at the outset Richard, perhaps you can enlighten all as to how in the original founding discussions board members (appointed as individuals) were to reconcile there fiduciary responsibility to the organization while serving the interests of local Federations. Either UJC must be a total captive of its membership (who must send their best and brightest to represent them) or should have the independence to nominate its leadership and "lead" or attempt to do so as it sees fit. Is there a true middle ground?

Several of you who called me concluded that the Anonymous writer was the UJC Board Chair. I disagreed inasmuch as Joe Kanfer could just as easily have used his name (except for the fact that he probably wouldn't want to admit to reading these pages). But it matters not who wrote the Comment. The question is fundamental. In response, two correspondents sent we their own analysis. I reprint them below (redacted to protect their identities); I reveived a Comment from a respected national leader as well; and after all three, my own response:

~ "The answer to the anonymous post is really quite simple: it depends on the mission of the organization.

UJC is not a ruling body of federations (Kanfer, Rieger, not withstanding.) It doesn't set policy for federations. It represents the interests of federations by:
1. compiling best practices
2. providing oversight to overseas expenditures through UIA
3. convening the system for consensus building around common interests
4. making federations aware of applicable public policy
5. acting as a clearinghouse for professionals/employment

I probably could list a few more but they wouldn't include anything of a unilateral nature. By the way, why would a federation want to send its best/brightest to the national system unless it had an incentive (e.g. larger gift, greater good, continued engagement)"

~ "This is a perfect question (how to represent a federation) and one that was raised at a critical ONAD meeting . I believe it was at the 2003 hearings or maybe it was at the 2004 meetings. I believe this was one of the reasons but certainly not the major reason that ONAD failed and possibly why UJC is in its current fiscal situation.

Meetings had been ongoing for the entire day. There had been a two-three hour caucus among the federations with ORT, JAFI and JDC barred from the room. We were under the impression that the disagreement was between Chicago and federations supporting its position and NY and its supporters. After the caucus and the meeting re-convened there was a negotiated position that had been reached presented to the assembled body for discussion and then ratification.

In the room were NY and Chicago leadership, leadership from 8 other large cities representing themselves and the other 8 large cities not at the table, perhaps 4 large intermediate city delegations representing 18-20 large cities not at the table, and two or three intermediate city delegations representing all intermediate cities and one or two small communities representing 50 plus small cities.

The key word here is "representing."

Astoundingly after the negotiated agreement, all of the discussion, etc, there were at least four federations (perhaps as many as six) of the 17 federations (after NY and Chicago were deducted from the 19) that abstained from the vote stating in one form or another "I cannot vote in favor of this because I cannot be sure that MY federation can increase our allocation (a 3% or 4% increase had been urged to get closer to what at that time was the national average).

The fact that perhaps 25-30% of the federations at the table representing 155 federations could not make a commitment beyond their own parochial interest spoke volumes about where ONAD was and where UJC was and still may be. They were present specifically to represent others by design and by vote as they were selected by their own city size group, yet they saw themselves as only able to speak for themselves and not for those they represented.

The final negotiated position passed, but it would be most interesting to see what the results were from those abstained communities and whether or not there was EVER system wide buy-in for that 3-4% increase. I am sure you will agree with my assumption that the answer was a very loud NO."

__________________________________________________________

Then came this Comment -- actually signed by the current UIA Chair,the immediate past Chair of his federation and a past Federation campaign chair:

" Dear Anonymous,

This question has vexed UJC since its inception. It is a true example of Circular Cause and Consequence logic. It is a logical fallacy where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause. It is exemplified in the question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

Circular cause and consequence is often confused with Mutually Contradictory statements, such as the famous "Catch-22", in which two mutually exclusive statements seem to send the reader back and forth in a cycle. Circular reasoning however is a problem of finding the 'root cause' however (e.g. which came first) which is not the basis of the Catch-22.

Having said all of that - the question itself may be a colossal waste of time. We answered this question in all of our Jewish Communities many, many years ago. The historic question was in essence are we a Federation of Jewish Philanthropies or a Federation of Jewish Philanthropists.

We may have begun as a Federation of Philanthropies, i.e. the JCC and the JFS will run one unified campaign, act as a central address, and centrally plan for maximum benefit to the Community. (Please note: not dissimilar to UJA itself). But the Board is made up of Philanthropists, no the board is made up of representatives of each of the Philanthropies (the beneficiary agencies), no the board is made up of the philanthropists, no the philanthropies, and ad infinitum.No it isn't.

The board is made up of those who respect the history and purpose of the constituents and act on behalf of unity of the philanthropists and the constituent philanthropies. And therefore we work truly on behalf of the Jewish People through its organized Jewish Community.No one questions the President of the JCC's fiduciary duty when she sits on the board of a Federation. She wears both kipot with respectful tension. Yes, she has to look out for the needs of her agency and be a forceful advocate, and she has to look out for the unity of the entire community. She knows that the strength of our Federation is that we come together as a unified family and that her agency will benefit by that unified action. She understands that we are in that life boat together.

We are a Federation of Jewish Philanthropies and of Jewish Philanthropists and they can never be mutually exclusive. Sort of like Dodge of the old west: "we check our guns at the door." We recognize that our individual fiduciary duty is best served by our collective survival and flourishing.We were work for unity of purpose respecting our beneficiary constituency and respecting our donor's needs. If we alienate one - we will alienate the other.

If we will be "United " and I needlessly remind us that that is our First Name, we will work for unity every single day of our United Jewish Communities existence. We do this in every real Federation in North America and we do it well every single day.

All UJC must do is act the same way."

Bruce A. Arbit

__________________________________________________________________



The Anonymous Comment caused me to reflect on my very brief role in the orientation process for new Federation representatives to CJF during the brief UJA/CJF Partnership. I attended and spoke about what service on the national Board meant -- I remember stating that it was critical, even though they were appointed by their federation, that they take a new national perspective on the issues facing our system. That was my view. I was then followed (perhaps by Conrad Giles, the President of CJF) whose message was: "You are here as the representatives of your federation." It was no wonder that Board service was so confusing. The Comment failed to contemplate UJC's By-Laws that state clearly and unequivocally that, except in certain specific instances (At Large, Honorary), Board of Trustee members are appointed by their federations. The Board is, in my opinion, there to execute their fiduciary obligations on behalf of the owners (that is to say, the federations) as to policies and programs contemplated by UJC leaders.

The Comment makes clear its author's intent -- either a Board of Owners responsible to the Federation which appoint the Member (and, thus, from the Commentator's perspective, UJC becomes "a total captive") or an entity that nominates its own Board with the ability to "'lead'... as it sees fit." I, for one, reject the Commentator's "either/or" premise. The fault line within UJC arises out of the current leadership's abject failure to engage the Owners in substantive matters of policy and program -- these few have made an assumption, outside the scope of UJC's own governance, that they were elected "to lead...as they see fit." Like my federation and yours, like almost every non-profit, except those great foundations driven by men and women who have created and funded them, UJC is a consensus-driven body: it requires a consensus among its owners to act. Driving consensus is challenging, it is time consuming, but it is, at the end of the process, wholly rewarding. Our leaders should try it.

Rwexler

THE COURT JEWS OF UJC

In a recent column, Laurence White wrote of Obama's Court Jews: the Rise of J Street. Therein, White defined his terms: "Court Jews were so named because they were Jews who did favors for noblemen in exchange for prestige, social influence, and various privileges not available to other Jews. They were often more concerned with preserving their status and fortunes then in promoting the welfare of their less fortunate (Jews)...in order to achieve personal advantage." This column, damning in its own right of J Street, brought to mind the sorry state of our national federation-owned organization, and one of the causes of its disappearance as a relevant and critical organization.

First, let me be clear -- there have been a number of federation lay and professional leaders whose support for UJC over the past few years arose from a sincere belief that their actions could right the listing ship. They hoped they would be listened to. They eventually came to understand that their support was interpreted by some in UJC lay and professional leadership as a blank check to do as they pleased without regard for the owners' interests or needs (except as these UJC leaders misperceived these interests or needs). Some believe that total deference to leaders is the price we pay for electing them -- they haven't read Pirke Avot. However, they and others -- the "enablers" as I termed them, the "Court Jews" as White would define them -- chose to support policies they knew to be wrong, knew to be harmful to UJC and, thereby to federations, even their own, either because it was "easier" or because they sensed that if they marched in total obsequity, their own opportunities of institutional advancement would be enhanced. They should look carefully at themselves in the mirror.

Many friends advised me since this Blog began to sha, to be silent as to the abuses I observed. That it "would be better for (me) and (my) reputation" and, apparently, my "future" within UJC if I "just went along." I was reminded by a terrific leader of the message of Ki Teitzei as I interpreted it two weeks ago -- that in the face of indifference, we are not allowed to be indifferent, particularly as to matters of principle and conscience.

Our organizations -- be they UJC, our federations, JDC, JAFI, ORT, JCPA, Hadassah, you name them -- do not succeed when those who aspire to lead "go along to get along," as so many do. They succeed when women and men act on their principles rather than upon their ambitions. The best may be when ambition and principle coincide not as a rationalization but as a reality.

Kathy and Jerry will have to sort that out if UJC is to succeed as it must.

Rwexler

"HOPE RISES..."

Today is the first day of the rest of Jerry Silverman's professional life. Today Jerry takes the reins as UJC's President and Chief Executive Officer. His will be a daunting task. He must learn the complexities that drive 157 federations while simultaneously pulling UJC itself from the depths to which it has fallen. And he must do so, at least over the next two months, while the sitting Board Chair and the leaders that person has put in place continue to push him in directions the federations have already rejected. Jerry will need all the strengths he demonstrated to the Search Committee...and more.

This week UJC's current "leadership" will convene in two meetings (the first, the "insider" lay Executive Council [or whatever it is called] -- the "insider group" that has been calling the scatter shots that has put UJC in the position it currently holds -- and then a more expansive small group) to help Silverman "understand" -- what, exactly? How they created the mess? Or how well they perceive UJC is doing?

Hands have reached out to Silverman since the Search ended offering advice and counsel. But, as with anyone taking on a position of this importance, with all of their help, Jerry will still have to find his own way if UJC is to succeed as it must...and it must succeed. As one of my friends said last week: "The Jewish community is too precious to be squandered as it has been." How right he is.

UJC has been rudderless for far too long; it has lacked a consistent and meaningful vision; it has wandered off in directions that have undermined its potential relevance; it has failed to both lead and follow...it has staggered aimlessly in an organizational fog. Jerry must simply say: "No more" and lead us out into the light. Those meetings this week would be a good place to start.

So, Jerry, we wish you great success. "Hope rises...and the cause endures."

Rwexler

RISKS AND REWARDS

In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal -- Tishman Struggles with Office Portfolio (August 19, 2009) -- Tishman Speyer's determination to emerge from the real estate recession with strength was discussed at some length. The article concludes with a quote from the firm's co-founder, Jerry Speyer; "If you don't take any risks, you don't have any rewards."

I am among those who believe that UJC should take risks, should be a place for experimentation, for new ideas. In other non-profit organizations experiments have ripened into best practices -- from Chicago's "extreme FRD" to Los Angeles's "LA Direct" and on and on. In each place of which I am aware, these experiments, these new ideas flowed from and through construction, debate into implementation. But, not at UJC:The Federations of North America (or whatever is the name du jour). At UJC there is risk without process and the results speak for themselves.

Let's look at the Reorganization Strategy of blessed memory. Imposed as a set of "management changes," they imposed significant policy changes without any governance approvals. The following year's Budget was structured to "implement" the Reorganization. Two years later the Strategy was abandoned as if it never existed in the first place. Before implementation of this sad chapter, UJC lay leaders were literally "summoned" to New York, told that they could ask questions but there would be no changes.

This was the pattern that operated everywhere. The 2010 Budget was approved by the Budget Committee last Spring ostensibly to "implement" the FLI Recommendations. When Budget Committee members began to ask serious questions, they were admonished that that was not their role -- their role was to approve the Budget as submitted -- and there "wasn't time." (Those who did the "admonishing" may have failed to read the By-Laws as they pertain to the creation and role of the UJC Budget & Finance Committee.)

Round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows? UJC has been run under the current regime as if it were Tishman Speyer. It's not.

Rwexler

DO IT TODAY

Many of us received the poignant letter that follows. Don't delay. Please follow the plea of Noam and Aviva Shalit. There is no time to waste.

Gilad Is Still Alive!!!!

Dear Friend

We, Noam and Aviva Shalit, residents of Mizpeh Hila in Israel, parents of Gilad Shalit, are appealing to you, Jews of the United States, with an emotional request from the depths of our heart.

With the coming new Jewish year, with the month of Elul to begin, we want to ask each and every Jew who lives in the United States to feel, think, and devote a number of moments for our son Gilad.

About five years ago our son Gilad was inducted into the IDF (Israel Defense Forces), and like every soldier Gilad swore to be loyal to his homeland and to do his best for the State of Israel.

We, as parents, sent our son to defend the State and its citizens, since this is how it should be. However, after two years we were informed that our son Gilad was kidnapped into the Gaza strip by the Hamas organization, which is recognized as a terrorist organization. He is kept in complete isolation from the outside world, without any basic human rights.

Gilad is in captivity and Gilad is still alive! We have no idea whether you can feel and understand the concept of captivity, but certainly each one of you can understand the meaning of freedom, the right to freedom that was stolen from you, the right to live as a person.

We have made our life a struggle for Gilad Shalit, we are doing everything possible for this cause.

We are recruiting the citizens of the State of Israel, leaders around the world, politicians, rabbis and many others. However, we are still fighting to receive=2 0a real sign of life from the Red Cross, we are fighting for his rights according to international law.

Every Jew around the world, and in America in particular, has a real motive to lead a peace process in the Middle East and as a friend of Israel can influence the process of Gilad’s release and put pressure on the Red Cross.

Like every family, we want to celebrate the New Year holiday with Gilad, at home, in Mizpeh Hila. Perhaps this is in your hands?

We are asking each and every Jew in America to contact the Red Cross, by email and by telephone, and ask what is going on with our Gilad, and to contact the President of the USA, Barack Obama.

webmaster.gva@icrc.org
ICRC headquarters in GenevaPostal addressInternational Committee of the Red Cross19 Avenue de la PaixCH 1202 Geneva President Barack H Obama

The White House1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NYWashington, D.C. 20500USA

In addition, please sign the petition that calls for the release of Gilad Shalit. The petition is found at our official website: http://via.readerimpact.com/c/161/e7a213949ed107c653db2f5a90dabd34dd855c0653a61525d85bc17c30f89d3a. Please also send your information to: freegiladny@walla.com (Dr. Hadar)

Each one of you can be a partner in the campaign to bring Gilad home.

This participation fulfills the incomparable religious commandment of redeeming the captives and will benefit you for the coming New Year.

I wish you a Shana Tova.

Noam and Aviva Shalit"

Write now....right now.

Rwexler

FURLOUGHS, BUDGET CUTS, BLINDERS AND UJC DUES

More and more one is seeing federations facing falling campaigns, reduced grant dollars and declining endowment values turning to draconian means to meet the crisis. Were there still a UJC worthy of the name (whatever that may be today) maybe...maybe...there would be some national leadership through this Great Recession; instead, we get conference calls and "Crisis Newsletters." So, it is each federation for itself and, as all politics is local, so are "solutions" in the face of the economic tsunami. How could one not be saddened by the reality that UJC has become Kamchatka, the place where nothing grows. And how urgently UJC must change itself.

This is just a personal opinion, as always: the idea of using "furloughs" to stem the tide of the economic crisis is neither a good nor creative idea. Federation doors must remain open, federations must be at work at least five days a week. Reduce the work day hours...fine; go to flexible schedules to achieve the same result...fine; work even harder to raise more dollars...the best. But close one day a week...a bad idea, even if a skeleton staff remains to keep the doors open. We have seen many, many examples in the federation world, in the non-profit world and in the business world of voluntary or imposed salary cuts to avoid even more draconian staff cuts (not, of course, at UJC) but the very concept of "furloughs" as some federations are imposing them makes little sense in the federation context -- it sends a message to the community that "we're going to be there for you 20% fewer days than we have before." That's entirely the wrong message. (And, yes, reduced hours or flex time schedules are a form of "furlough" but doors remain open, Federation is at work five days a week, etc. Big differences.)

In the meantime, UJC is operating as if it will receive 2010 dues in total satisfaction of its Budget. Some in federation leadership ought to sit down with Kathy Manning, Jerry Silverman and Sam Astrof, and explain that there should be no such expectations. Astrof has a federation CFO group -- they ought to be convened immediately in an effort to have a candid dialogue...an environmental scan if you will of the dire circumstances. And if Sam and his staff are getting periodic candid reports, they ought to be sharing them. (Although I believe that they are.)

I fear that there are those at 25 Broadway who are in total denial of the fiscal realities. The organization's monthly spend rate presumes that Dues will be paid in full even as the federations send their message that they won't be. It's a dangerous fiscal game. I would expect that the first days of Jerry Silverman's service will include a candid analysis of budget vs. income.

Rwexler

MEA CULPA

I have made some errors in the Posts on this Blog. When I do, I want to apologize. I have reported more than once that the allocation of $750,000 (in a three year contractual commitment at $250,000 per year) for Sheatufim had never been approved in any UJC Budget. Sam Astrof has sent me the Budget pages and I was very wrong: In 2006-2007, under New Programs -- Israel Center for Civil Society...$250,000. Not only have I been wrong in these pages, I served on the UJC Budget and Finance Committee when this allocation was first made.

So, my apologies. While I continue to search for the disclosure that leadership had theretofore committed UJC to a three year (or was it five) "investment" my sense is that they did not. The issue remains but the budget approval clearly was given.

Rwexler

UNITY...WHAT'S THAT?

Over this Summer UJC's leaders might have dedicated themselves to an acknowledgment that all is not well in the two relationships upon which systemic unity is based: (1) the relationship with the federations which own UJC and (2) the relationship with the federations' historic partners, the Joint Distribution Committee and the Jewish Agency for Israel. Sadly, as UJC moves toward the installation of a new CEO and the elevation of the Chair of the Executive to Board Chair, its small group of leaders chose to ignore (1) and exacerbate (2). They live in their own world, one of denial and disregard.

As to the federations, perhaps UJC's leaders' attitudes have been framed by a sense that there is nothing UJC can do to ease the pain that a super-majority, if not all, federations are experiencing. As we have noted in earlier Posts, UJC's Financial staff had teed up another $2 million in Budget cuts in preparation of the 2010 Budget. The Treasurer was well aware of these proposed reductions. When the CEO violently objected, heads down the staff and Treasurer restored them notwithstanding the reality that those cuts would have been consistent with federations' needs. Over the past months, UJC's Officers have consistently downplayed the number of federations who will reduce their dues payments. Friends have been told that "Wexler is, as usual, way off base (only cruder)." I wish I were wrong; yet, I know of at least eight Large Cities which will be unable or unwilling to pay full dues; a significant number of Large Intermediate Federations will reduce their Dues payments pro rata to the reduction in agency allocations; and others across the spectrum of City sizes will seek "deferrals" of significant portions of their 2010 Dues, creating, essentially, a large Accounts Receivable portfolio at UJC. Other federations will withdraw funds from their allocations to JAFI and JDC to meet their Dues obligations. This is the mess that UJC denies exists. There appears to be no one pondering the question: what if Federation dues payments fall well below budgeted expenses?

Then, there is the constancy of UJC's disunity breeding ground. In February 2009 I questioned whether the FLI was "rigged" with predetermined outcomes, in particular the obsession certain members of Kanfer's "clique" had with rending the fabric that bound JAFI and JDC to the federations and vice versa. I have been assured that what I wrote then was wrong. Here is what I said in that February Post on the subject before the FLI took place: "...in speaking to the Recommendations that would rend the fabric of the federations historic partnership with JAFI and JDC while UJC positions itself for a more significant role in Israel, federation leaders will rise to decry the fundamental change in the historic partnership at a time we need unity here and in Israel. Kanfer and his acolyte, Toni Young, will rise up a capella to whine that they are just trying to 'focus people' and have '...an honest discussion.' The obvious and over-arching strategy that Kanfer and his tight Circle of Trust have determined will work is to posit that JAFI and JDC have failed to respond to the 'market' and need to be replaced. They will submit that only by offering a 'third way' will allocations for Israel and Overseas increase. They will ignore the fact that UJC's failure to advocate for the great unmet needs in Israel and Overseas has failed not only JAFI and JDC but those of our People most in need. 'JAFI and JDC are so 1975. Things have changed over 40 years. So. let's move on.' Kanfer and his ilk, so spoiled, cannot bring themselves to countenance even the possibility they are wrong hellbent as they are to divide our system under the guise of 'big, new ideas.'"

The federations resisted, speaking loud and clear that UJC must maintain the exclusive relationship with our Israel and Overseas partners -- JAFI, JDC and ORT. But, this has not stopped the clique. Even now, in the bowels of something called the Center for Jewish Philanthropy Executive Council, the ubiquitous Toni Young (!) has resurrected the divisive concept rejected at the FLI. At a time of tremendous and growing deficits for our historic partners, Ms. Young (and, apparently, Global Operations: Israel and Overseas Chair, Shep Remus) advocates draining even more dollars away from them. She just doesn't, she just can't, get the message. UJC leaders attend JAFI and JDC Board meetings, they insist on the perquisites, as they see them, of their status -- seats on the dais, participation in JAFI meetings with the Government of Israel -- yet, they are willing to ignore the humanitarian crises that JDC and JAFI face as their programs are cut, cut and cut again. These are programs providing basic human needs -- and UJC would ignore them in pursuit of their small group of "leaders" goals.

In an article in the JTA on August 25, Officials at aid groups mull more cuts in the FSU, Jacob Berkman focused on the Joint being forced to cut food and vital drug supplies to the elderly in the FSU and the Jewish Agency being forced to consider cutting its critical programs there. The situation is dire. With no CEO in place, one can only speculate as to who it was at the organization who offered this quote: "For a long time we have been advocates (ed., UJC has not been an "advocate" for at least five years; what fantasy world do they live in?) with all of our overseas partners for overseas needs...We share their concern over these pressing needs and we think it is their obligation to bring these to the attention of the federations." Is there a federation leader around who believes that UJC has no obligation to advocate, no "obligation to bring these (needs) to the attention of the federations?" Shame on UJC and shame on us for allowing this to happen.

As always, unfortunately, the CJP, desperately searching for its raison d'etre, would trample on the unity that UJC's new leaders must try to immediately achieve. JAFI and JDC have reached agreement as between the two parties. UJC appears to be rejecting their agreement in pursuit of "goals" unrelated to desires of UJC's owners. THIS MUST STOP. NOW.

What's to be done? UJC's new leaders must immediately create a new culture to total transparency. We cannot endure weeks and months of decisions made by some form of "Management Council" rather than, e.g., the UJC Executive Committee. We cannot further endure weeks and months of financial decisions made by Committees with no governance approval. Open up UJC to the Federation owners. Shedding the light of day on the decision-making process will move UJC forward. Try it.

Rwexler

BYE

I know that a number of you logged into the Blog today expecting some farewell summary of Howard's five years as CEO (make that "President and CEO") of UJC. I wish him the best, as do we all.

Rwexler