TSK...TSK...TSK...TRIBEFESTIVUS

 Someone from 25 Broadway, writing anonymously of course, attacked an Anonymous critic of the Fest whose Comment was one of many in response to HELL IN A HAND BASKET -- TRIBEFEST EDITION. The Anonymous to whom JFNA was "responding" had pointed out that the same JFNA writer had cited three Fest 1 programs wherein community philanthropy was presented and that represented less than 10% of the programs at a federation event. I have decided to print the entirety of this quasi-official response (for how could it be "official" if this courageous professional hides behind anonymity) with some commentary:

Dear friend, those were just a few examples of the whole. No, that was it -- three programs.  It is clear that the facts are not important here in this discussion, so I will leave it at that. Sure, when the facts are on your side, argue the facts, when the law is on your side, argue the law and when neither is on your side just "leave it at that." I am sorry you are so angry about something that is trying to do some good and has the support of the majority of the federations and people out there - at least that has been the surveyed feedback. We'd be glad to publish this "survey" right here. What we do know are the following facts: TribeFest was "planned" for unaffiliated young adults; yet, 75% of those in attendance were affiliated; a federation offering a subsidy is going to give priority to those affiliated with it; and JFNA so blindly lost over $250,000 on the 2011 "Event" that it begged the Endowment Committee for $100,000 that are going for even more subsidies; and JFNA has now added a new appendage to increase numbers -- a so-called "Leadership Development Institute" of 5 hours duration, including lunch, that is designed, best I can tell, strictly to increase the numbers at Festivus. N'est-ce pas? My suspicion is that ANYTHING that JFNA tries to do will not be good in your eyes, so why even bother to have this discussion. On these pages we would welcome ANYTHING that JFNA does well.

Just remember that there are a lot of good, honest and dedicated young professionals (there are some great young professionals at JFNA and I would wager that all of them are "good/honest" but I would wager that the Anonymous writer would not meet the age cohort of the invitees to the Fest). at JFNA who are working very hard on this, doing it with little or no budget (please -- we have seen the budget for the Fest - it's $818,000 not including staff time and staff travel -- so, do not insult your own intelligence), and are doing it in partnership (yes, that is a real word -- yes, and to JFNA, by its actions, it is only a word)) with our federations, our agencies, and organizations.
We don't think these attacks are funny.

Always good to hear from our friends at 25 Broadway.

Rwexler

"PARTNERS" -- REALLY?

As all of you know, whether you are regular readers of this Blog or merely "experience" JFNA with any regularity, or have been told by JFNA how great it is to have your organization as a "partner," JFNA throws around terms that they either (a) don't understand or (b) don't mean, or both. And, as trust is the most critical characteristic of success, JFNA by its misuse and abuse of the concept and definition of "partnership" has destroyed the trust of those who could...and should...be its greatest supporters and best "partners."

First, let's be sure that we are all on the same page. "Partners" have been defined generally as bound to work with each other "...to the greatest common advantage, to be just and faithful to each other" in every way. It is a relationship requiring trust and good faith.  Got it? OK. Now all of you who believe that JFNA behaves like a partner with those it calls its "partners," please raise your hands. Hmmmm. Seeing none, let's continue, bearing the definition in mind.

So, let's look at JFNA and how it treats those it calls its "partners:"

• The "historic" partners. When JFNA's "leaders" refer to the Jewish Agency and Joint as "our historic partners," I have the sense that "our" doesn't include JFNA, but references the federations...as there is no evidence...none...that JFNA has treated the Jewish Agency and the Joint as its defined partners over the last six(+) years. Core allocations are at an all time low to both organizations and JFNA has not raised a hand or its voice in support of these true "partners." The Global Planning Table is structured, even mandated, to further erode these core allocations in every way. So much for "partnership," agreed?
• The "other" (overseas) partners. Specifically, World ORT and the Ethiopian National Project (the "ENP") have been defined as the "other partners" in JFNA's meaningless way. True, JFNA's leaders made a special appeal for funding the ENP and, in JFNA's meaningless way, that letter appeal was it. Funding for both of the "other partners" has fallen and both have been left to the whims of the GPT. Yet, "partners" they may be called, they have no seats "at the Table" and, in fact, were told that they could not attend the GPT meetings in Orlando. So much for "partnership," agreed?
• Our National Agency partners. The system's national agencies -- those we have historically supported as part and parcel of our collective responsibility as they were the agencies our system actually created. You remember them; JFNA would like to forget them...and, more or less, has. JFNA recreated the national agencies support system as The Alliance -- a voluntary National Funding Council the purpose of which, as it has worked out, is to hide the desire of some federations to deeply cut national agencies support behind a planning facade. In fact, there has been no real national agency planning since The Alliance was formed; but there has been serious reductions in national agencies funding. The Alliance, at least to some of us, is to the National Agencies as the Global Planning Table will be to the Jewish Agency and JDC. So much for "partnership," agreed?
• The partners in TribeFest. You may remember last year that JFNA proudly announced, before the financial and purposeless Festivus 1, that it had "over 40 partners in TribeFest," most with the experience and participant base with which JFNA was so desperately seeking to associate itself. Turns out, in its quest "for increased numbers," with its massive subsidies JFNA is sucking the very life out of these "partners." One of them, operating a significant and successful Festival for youngsters for what is now its 8th iteration, at a cost of about 1/10th of the TribeFest, and with the same intended audience, and the same "performers," (and, of course, more) has seen numbers reduce because of this "leech effect" of Festivus. I had suggested in 2009, when JFNA Fest first reared its head ("we're going to Vegas," screamed Jerry at the New Orleans GA), that JFNA just support these successful efforts...but no -- we'd rather throw a million dollars at our own. Of course we would.  So much for "partnership," agreed?

There was a time in the now not so recent past when our national organizations were truly partners -- they understood partnership; they worked hand-in-hand with our partners who performed our work for us, in Israel and overseas, at the national agencies. But, that was then and this is now. Bottom line, it's clearly best not to be JFNA's "partner" -- in fact, if you hear JFNA "leaders" call you a "partner" run away as fast as you possibly can.

Rwexler

DOGGEREL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shabbat shalom.

Rwexler

THE GA

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

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

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

Rwexler

HELL IN A HAND BASKET -- TRIBEFEST EDITION

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________________________________________

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

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

Rwexler

CASH

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

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

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

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

Rwexler

"PHILANTHROPIC RESOURCES" -- A TUTORIAL

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

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

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

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

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


Rwexler

WREAKING HAVOC EVERYWHERE

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aren't we just proud?

Rwexler

THE LAST REFUGE OF SCOUNDRELS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rwexler

MIRABILE DICTU -- ALMOST

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rwexler