A CRITICAL DAY IN THE LIFE OF...

Today leaders of the Joint, the Jewish Agency and JFNA will meet at 25 Broadway in a meeting scheduled weeks ago but now with an urgency and an agenda the catalyst for which was the Joint's roll-out of its threat to leave the system in its wake as it embarked on a federation-by-federation onslaught to change the "split" between JAFI/JDC in its favor. In so doing, the Joint would ignore the fact that it agreed with JAFI over the past months (for reasons clear only to debaters and lawyers and Joint leaders, JDC would like you to believe they have been "burdened" by the current split since a 1952 agreement, even as the Joint has entered into agreement after agreement with the same split since that time) to essentially retain the split of core at current percentages while JFNA (which was to be solely a mediator), chose to rewrite the deal in part to protect ORT!! Bizarre? Yes. Especially when one looks at the realities of current distributions to JAFI and JDC from America.

So, now, JFNA will have to rely once again on Large City Federation Executives to pull its chestnuts from the fire. Some form of real advocacy may emerge and JFNA leaders will no doubt try to save face by imposing a "global planning table" (for which they have budgeted $250,000 for 2011 for no apparent purpose) on JAFI/JDC. All this while, as John Ruskay has pointed out, the Joint is in reality already the recipient of 1/3 of federation allocations when designated allocations are included. Perhaps at the meeting someone will point out that even as the Joint agreed as a condition precedent to the meeting taking place to remove the most threatening "conditions" in its letters to select federations from the "table," it is, in reality, and has been, implementing them with on-going FRD efforts in multiple federations, many of which are just too weak today to push back.

There is another reality that won't be discussed. In 2005 as I realized that the then UJC was not going to engage in resource development action or advocacy for Israel and overseas needs, I met with JDC leaders at the Joint offices in New York. There I plead with them to join JAFI in a continental advocacy effort -- one in which the two organizations would ask UJC to join and, if not, the two organizations together would go forward. We had a good discussion; the leaders were extremely gracious. Weeks later the Joint advised me that they did not wish to join JAFI in such an effort but wished to continue to await UJC meeting its responsibilities. I was disappointed but not surprised; and I was frustrated as I already knew that UJC's leaders were not going to meet those responsibilities (or, for the next five years, any others as to the Joint, JAFI or, for that matter, the federations).

Is it too late now, after a decade of neglect, for JFNA to meet its obligations> Even if propped up by Chicago, New York, Cleveland and others, I fear that that is the circumstance. I hope I am wrong.

Rwexler

JFNA -- A PARABLE

Two beggars are sitting side-by-side on a street corner in Boston. One has a cross in front of him and the other one has the Magen David, the Star of David. Many people go by, look at both beggars, but only put money in the hat of the beggar sitting behind the cross.

A priest comes by, stops and watches as throngs of people give money to the beggar behind the cross...but none to the beggar behind the Star of David. Finally, exasperated, the priest goes over to the beggar sitting behind the Magen David and says: "My poor fellow, don't you understand? This is a Catholic city. People aren't going to give you money of you sit there with a Star of David in front of you...especially when you're sitting beside someone who has a cross in front of him. In fact, they will probably give more to him just out of spite."

The beggar with the Magen David then turns to the other beggar with the cross and says: "Jerry, look who's trying to teach the Silverman brothers about marketing."

Rwexler

TAG YOUR "#ISH" AND OTHER #ISHISMS

So we were sitting around with Jerry one day -- me and the other Marketing and Communications folk -- spitballing ideas of how to stimulate young Jews continent-wide to consider federations as their home. We weren't really coming up with anything when suddenly one of the guys sneezed -- "ISH" was the sound we heard. Gesundheit, I yelled. "That's it," a couple of the pros with whom I work yelled out. "That's what?" the rest of us cried. "ISH, don't you get it? It's all about being Jewish and relating to the feds." "Huh?" some of us asked. But, believe it or not, from a sneeze came one of the great marketing ideas of all time.

I know, some of you cynics out there, and all of you over 35 don't get it but, really, like our famous Heroes campaign, we have sent this "ish-thing" up the flagpole and everyone under 35 saluted. In our press release on May 6 (The Jewish Federations of North America Launches "what's Your #Ish?") we said, in relevant part, "...Readers are invited to [post their ideas of what being Jewish means to them...and to tag their #ish with the hash-tag symbol." Don't know what that sentence means?? That's ok because neither do we -- that's our gift.

Yeah, it could mean British or Finnish, Scottish or Spanish, but it doesn't; it would be foolish to think so. This is about being #ish; what's so hard to kapish? It's not necessary to embellish even if you think the whole idea hellish. It's just the ishist -- try that as the anagram it's meant to be. And, if worst comes to worst, remember -- the ISH website is where you will find innovative bathroom design.

But, if you would go to our #ish website, you can watch the great ads we've done with some major stars -- the Sklar brothers and Joey something (both very funny) -- that speak to the ishiness of being Jewish and federation-connected. Some people will think us foolish, others will wish we would take our ish and bury the "idea" such as it ish...er, is.

But, that's not all -- "[F]or every #ish response, JFNA will credit 25 cents (yes, that's $.25) to a $50,000 #ish fund for charity. The fund will cover the core thematic needs supported by the ...Annual Campaign." This will give the lie to those out there who say that JFNA fails to meaningfully support the Annual Campaign. Continuing our work begun with the famous UJC "pizza and a Pepsi" campaign, we are there for the federations, our owners in meaningful ways. Those quarters will add up quickly, so give us your #ish before we run out.

__________________________________________________________________

This all brings to mind a brilliant cartoon in the May 10 New Yorker. Two guys are standing in front of a movie theater:"I can't decide if that was bad in a good way, good in a good way, good in a bad way, or bad in a bad way." Except, I can...

So, friends, start asking yourselves and your friends the obvious question aloud: "what's your #ish" and watch strangers staring at you quizzically. Your only #ish once you know.

Rwexler

AS IT SHOULD

With many of you, I read the article in jpost.com on May 11 -- US Jews: Conversion bill 'disastrous'" -- with interest and a sense of pride in JFNA. That sense was not trumped in the least that somehow the statement reached the Post before it reached JFNA's owners and constituents.


A little background: as we wrote on these pages, last month, not having been consulted in the legislative process on this critical matter impacting on World Jewry, JFNA delivered a letter to the Prime Minister demanding among other things to be part of the process related to the Knesset legislation. The Bill's sponsor, MK David Rotem expressed solidarity and he and Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon then visited the US for a "dialogue." Unfortunately, the Rotem/Ayalon trip appeared not to have been to listen but, instead, to "sell" legislation that, as JFNA pointed out, "has the potential to divide the Jewish community or to alienate Diaspora Jewry" by placing the determination of the "validity" of conversions in the hands of the Chief Rabbinate whose antipathy toward the Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist Rabbinate has been a constant.


As Jonah Mandel's article pointed out, the Israeli leaders seemed to be "unfazed," Rotem going so far as to strangely opine: "when everyone objects to a law, it means that it's a good one." The dismissive attitudes of Rotem and Ayalon, which seem to suggest that the proposed bill is "good for Israel" are clear evidence that the unanimous opinion expressed by JFNA has not been considered as it should be.


I suggested in an earlier Blog Post that JFNA should be in Jerusalem on this issue, in the PM's Offices and in the Knesset. Letters are inadequate -- although this appears to have been a good one. It's time to mobilize.


Rwexler

WAKE-UP CALL...OR DEATH SPIRAL?

Hello, JFNA, it's time to wake up!!! Don't hit that Snooze Alarm again. One of the Friends of the Blog wrote me a while back: "JFNA has to save the collective but individual Federations have to save themselves and I'm afraid that too many are still doing work based on our historic legacy but not on the future of the Jewish People." Strong stuff -- but in the months that have intervened between my friend's note and today, JFNA's leaders have abandoned their responsibility to the collective out of fear of a rebellion from some critical dues-paying federations and more.

The "more" is my sense that JFNA must be there side-by-side with federations working together on not only the "historic legacy" but, as well, on the "future" -- the points at which the future of the Jewish People and the future of federations intertwine. But JFNA can't. Why? Because there is no one in the leadership of JFNA who has a real clue, from experience, engagement or involvement, of what the concept, the construct really means. When and where there is no such understanding, it is truly "bowling alone," every donor for himself/herself, every federation for itself, and, worse, the Joint feeding the frenzy of "going it alone."

In the weeks ahead, I will be writing about the effect of the Jewish Federations of North America's reduction of the concept of collective responsibility to such a minimum...beyond such a minimum...as to make a mockery of this concept that has been that which distinguishes our annual campaigns and allocations from all other charities and philanthropies. This is exactly the outcome that occurs when there is a knowledge void at the top. What we need are our voices to be heard for JFNA's moral position; a position that may no longer exist.

And just who is going to lead this effort, if the effort ever takes place?

Rwexler

DUES REDUX

While JFNA struggles for relevance, a number of federations seeking hardship or other relief from "fair share" Dues have been told that there will be no "hardship" determination -- instead JFNA will "loan back" the amount of unpaid Dues taking back some promise of future payment or promissory note in consideration. Now none of these federations asked for this treatment; this, they were told, is what you're going to get. This what JFNA calls a "deferred payment plan."

For JFNA there is an account receivable and for the federations in question, an account payable. How many federations; how much has been "lent back," how much has JFNA borrowed using these accounts receivable as collateral? Will JFNA soon be making sub-prime mortgage loans? Where is JFNA getting the money to fund its Budget? And, the ultimate question: is this any way to finance an organization?

Some federations, I have been assured, have received a "payment schedule" with no prior discussion with them. It strikes me that this form of deficit financing was used by New York City during its worst financial crisis -- it almost bankrupted that great city; and is being used by many State governments during the financial crisis. It is bad economics and it is bad policy and just where has this policy been debated let alone approved by a JFNA governing body? (OK, maybe the Financial Relations Committee discussed this approach but who empowered it to create debt?) So, where is Felix Rohatyn when you need him; where will the JFNA "bail-out" come from? When you have a Budget without any revenue assumptions, you have a terrible process -- if it's a "process" at all.

I fear that those federations paying Dues currently are picking up the interest tab for those who are not -- or is it JAFI and the Joint? But my greatest fear is that at the end of the day there will be a large bill for unpaid accounts receivable and the burden will fall on a small number of federations to pay it. Meanwhile, this methodology appears to allow JFNA leaders to assert, in total disingenuity, that "every federation is current on their Dues" and "we have made no deals on Dues." They may have convinced themselves...but that appears pretty easy to do.

Correct me if I am wrong...please.

Rwexler

THEY MEAN WELL; THEY JUST CAN'T HELP IT

Our friends in leadership of JFNA are just well-meaning pretty nice folk. The Executive Committee met earlier this week and discussed the Joint's throwing of the gauntlet with apparent indignation. After the ExCom Meeting some unnamed group of JFNA leaders met further and came up with a very simple and, like them, well-meaning challenge to JDC (which must have had the Joint leaders cowering and laughing simultaneously). Here's what JFNA leaders came up with:

If the Joint will not take their first two "threats" off the table at the JDC Executive Committee and Board Meetings next week and off the table for the scheduled May 17 meeting among JFNA, JDC and JAFI on May 17, well, gosh dang it, JFNA will cancel the May 17 meeting. I can picture Irv Smokler and Steve Schwager going "Oooooooooooooooooooh noooooooooo, not that." So JDC agreed to "take recommendations 1 and 2 off the table." And, just to be sure, Michael Gelman reported to the federations (but not to the JFNA Board), that he, Kathy and Jerry will be at the JDC meetings.

So, there you have it....well, no. As the impacted federations know, the Joint has already been implementing "recommendations 1 and 2" selectively. In some communities the Joint agreed not to directly fund raise if the federation drastically modified its designated allocation "split;" in others it has hired current or former professionals to begin a JDC FRD process. At no federation which received the Joint threat have "recommendations 1 and 2 been taken off the table." In other words, Michael Gelman, the Joint Task Force Recommendations are already in play...but you knew that...didn't you? Oh, spare us the feckless.

Have a great Shabbat.

Rwexler

"WITHOUT FECK"

It is hard to conceive of a greater void than that the federations have created by not demanding of the Jewish Federations of North America that it meet the mandate it was given ten years ago and create some systemic discipline the lack of which is leading the federations into an abyss...perversely, therefore, an abyss of their own making. JFNA has become but a shadow of its predecessor organizations, which themselves were in serious decline at the time of merger over a decade ago. If someone told me in 1999 that they anticipated the sorry state of our system in 2010, I would have viewed them as daft -- but they would have been correct.

Even our leading federations, who rely on strong professional leadership. who need unity in order to empower JFNA and/or come together in collective action to impose discipline, are in disarray to the point that men and women I respect predict that the era of "sacred survival" is at an end. Three Large City federations unilaterally determine to cease allocating to core -- and there is no one in authority locally or nationally to point out how and why this is so wrong, so destructive not alone to the concept of a "system" but to those federations themselves. When a Large City Executive I have always respected shrugs off the destructive JDC threats of the past days as essentially meaningless "because when we stand together yada, yada, yada.." I sense a case of denial in the face of reality. When I hear that "all we need to do is raise more money and everything will work out" or words to that effect, I wonder if there has been any reflection on the reality that while our federations raised an additional $200,000,000 in the aggregate since the formation of JFNA, our national organization just stuck its collective head in the sand (where that head remains) while allocations to JAFI/JDC core reduced by over that amount over the same period. "Not our business; our business is Dues."

I see federations today the leaders of too many of which believe that they can unilaterally determine our overseas priorities because (a) they have a staff professional or amuta in Israel; or (b) they know more than either JDC or JAFI; or (c) because JFNA's message is "you decide, it's really none of our business;" or (d) because we have in our community a leader or leaders who have a "relationship" with the Joint or Agency that overrides rational collective decision-making; or (e) all of the above.

I see a totally inappropriate unilateral attack on the federations and JFNA by the Joint starting with a claim that they have been controlled by a "split" agreed to by contract "dating back to 1952" as if the Joint has been bound by a 58 year old agreement. And, no one at JFNA has enough sense of history (or just plain sense) to be able to respond by pointing out that that 1952 agreement has been renegotiated by JDC and JAFI at least every five and two years since and the Joint agreed (no one forced them into agreement) to the split because its then leadership was both reasonable and responsible. I see the Joint framing the issue as "feeding the hungry vs. Jewish identity" when its leaders know full well that they themselves have framed a budget for this year and next wherein they themselves reduced their funding for the poor and elderly in the FSU. And I read where that agency has dramatically expanded its marketing and FRD professionals (including this week hiring away a Large City Executive) while complaining bitterly about the "unfairness" of federation allocations. And, from JFNA, in response: "we are having productive discussions." Like Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

If you have been reading these pages, you probably know my sense that this mess has been wholly predictable. And, it's all so sad.

What we have is a feckless "leadership" of our system. (When I asked my son-in-law for a definition of "feckless," he offered quickly "without feck." Well said.) Afraid to offend, afraid to lead. At a time when leadership is needed, it is nowhere, preferring to look over its shoulder for fear of criticism, lacking any sense of moral obligation or what leadership means. I'll leave it to each of you to come to your own conclusions as to how we got here, but here we are, a continental collective community..."without feck" indeed.

Rwexler



Rwexler

JUST MUSING

1. One of those Leadership Briefings that JFNA publishes so often -- this one on a national Young Leadership one day "event" in Boston a while ago, got me to thinking. Whatever happened to the YLC bi-annual Washington Conference or to the successor to Tel Aviv I (and could there have been a "Tel Aviv I" if there never was a Tel Aviv II)?

I assume that somewhere within the Development area at JFNA, perhaps even in some of those meetings Jerry Silverman convenes for input from and give and take with the Development professionals, there has been serious discussion of the heretofore aimless wanderings in Development over the past 5 years, trying to get some focus on what federations need and what JFNA can do best to help them. Maybe the staff discussed with Jerry their experiences, if any, with these now forgotten Washington Conferences -- the energy, the networking, the development and exposure of new leaders, even "emerging adults" can relate to that discussion directly -- never, except at annual Cabinet Retreats, did I ever experience the energy, the emotion, the support for Israel, the enthusiasm of these conclaves. What did we do with these leaders other than, over the past six years, abandon them?

Maybe, just maybe, it would be appropriate for a group of lay and professional leaders to study just how and why our federations' national organization abandoned Washington (and, for that matter, Tel Aviv) to others. We went from exciting conferences to...nothing. The concept of "nothingness" applies to too much today.

2. Without any expectation that it would even generate discussion, I have suggested face-to-face and in Posts that JFNA convene a 2-day Retreat for its Board, academics, stream leaders -- a well-planned Retreat at which the future of the JFNA-Federation relationship could be discussed with input from Federation CEO's and leading academics and thought leaders. I even suggested a venue. I heard nothing in response from JFNA -- as per usual. Then Steven Windmueller, the Dean of the Los Angeles Campus of the HUC, offered his published thoughts on the creation of a "national conversation" on the same subjects more or less -- no JFNA response (although several Federation executives endorsed the idea). Query: Do JFNA's leaders fear such a conclave? Or do they only want events the outcomes from which they and they alone believe that they can control?

3. There have been two meetings convened by JFNA with the leaders of JAFI and JDC. The first, last September, as I recall, brought together Kathy Manning, Michael Gelman and Jerry Silverman with Joint and Jewish Agency leaders. the meeting focused on a potential JFNA-led advocacy effort. Then, a second meeting -- in November -- where Manning and Gelman were no-shows, at which the process was apparently "delegated" to Michael Lebovitz and Jerry, who would lead a coordinated cash collection process -- advocacy was no longer a matter of discussion. The end result: no one at JAFI or JDC was asked to participate in the failed year-end cash collections.

Now, the next meeting among JFNA, Agency and Joint is scheduled for May 17. Given JDC's recent threats to the federations and, thereby, to JFNA, what possibly could the agenda be? A JFNA advocacy effort -- not given JFNA's reductio ad absurdum definition of collective responsibility and the Joint's intransigence; cash -- apparently not.

Maybe there will be a before the fact discussion of JFNA's Budget and the dictated creation of a 50 federation "team" of local advocates for overseas needs in their communities. Maybe JFNA leaders will explain why there is a $75,000 grant to Sheatufim -- a "buy us a place at the table token payment to satisfy some unnamed JFNA 'insiders'?" Maybe there will be speeches as to why some salaries are being unfrozen, increased, while federations still are furloughing, reducing staffs and compensation. Maybe...nothing.

Just musing.

Rwexler

THE DISGRACEFUL UGLINESS OF NOW

In the heat of the health care debate, our country was disgraced....disgraced by those who attacked African American Congressmen and the President with the "n_____" word; disgraced by those who spat at others; disgraced by those who attacked Barney Frank as a "f.....": disgraced by the self-proclaimed savior of our Country, Rush Limbaugh, who referred to those who supported this bill as "bastards;" and disgraced, even by those among my friends, who referred to the President as a "fraud." This was not debate, chevre, this was poison perpetrated by the haters among us. These were not just "incidents of incivility" -- they are the outgrowth of incitement and hate -- too tolerated for too long by too many.

The health care legislation may at the end of the day be an error but, as through today, we have seen nothing -- not from Eric Cantor or John Boehner or John McCain or their ilk -- in the way of rational alternatives. Nothing. Worse, these "leaders" by their silence have encouraged those whose hate speech could, as President Clinton observed, lead to another McVeigh or worse. And never a condemnation from these leaders. The "loyal opposition" decided long ago that its position as with all things Obama would be unreasoned opposition -- lock-step, unanimous opposition. In our democracy, don't we have a right to expect more -- or is this all there is?

Is this all there is? The incitement, the ugliness, the hate? As one observer has written: "...democracy doesn't matter; ideas are not to be discussed; and opposing views are not be respected...they alone have the truth." He obsessed, as I do, that we are in a moment of dangerous incitement. The "birthers," those who choose to call the President by his middle name, the posters of Obama as a Nazi, the suggestion, made so often, that the President is a Marxist, Hitler reincarnate, an anti-semite, a socialist, etc. -- just incitement, pure and simple and venal.

And there are too many of our People, way too many, who subscribe to this incitement to their shame...and ours.

Rwexler