THE GPT AND DISBELIEF

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

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

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

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

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

Choosing disbelief is not an option.

Rwexler

JFNA -- THE JARGON MASTERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rwexler

CATCHING UP...YET AGAIN

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

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

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

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

Rwexler

A DISAGREEMENT WITH RESPECT

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

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

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

Rwexler

AN EXPERT'S VIEW OF THE GLOBAL PLANNING TABLE

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

"Dear Richard:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rwexler

LETTER TO JERRY...AGAIN

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

Dear Jerry,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can this. Can't you?

Warmest regards,

Richard

WITH APOLOGIES

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

DEAR JERRY...

Dear Jerry,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

You can do this. Can't you?

Warmest regards,

Richard

THE OVERSEAS RED HERRING

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

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

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

It's all so sad.

Rwexler

THE PORTLAND COLLABORATION MODEL

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

"Let me provide you with some background information:

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



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



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



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



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

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

Rwexler