THE RIGHT PERSON

In my recent Post -- CATCHING UP -- there was a comment on the blind leading the blind. It was directed to the Sr. V-P UJC-Israel's (and assorted other titles) presentation of fund raising techniques to a group called the PresentTense Fellows. My observations focused on the irony of having someone who clearly lacks a background in fund raising giving a presentation on the subject. This roused Comments and responses from, among others, a PresentTense Fellow who defended FRD 101 as having had great value. (Of course the obvious question: if one knows nothing about raising money, how would one know whether what they were being taught had value. You know -- if a tree....never mind.)

Anyway, let's close this chapter with this: UJC is still blessed, all of most senior management's efforts to the contrary notwithstanding, with some professionals who have actually raised money: Yitzchak Shavit, Beverly Woznica, Susan Solow Dubin, David Saginaw. There are still a few lay leaders like Lori Klinghoffer, Rani Garfinkle and Michael Lebovitz who have solicited. If none of them were available to go to Israel or, at least train Becky Caspi (assuming she would have thought to ask), then she might have turned to Alan Gill at JDC Israel, one of the most creative and successful fund raisers with whom she probably worked for many years or Jeff Kaye, JAFI's Director General Campaign and FRD. But, not our UJC Israel Director. She went to some book -- probably Fund Raising for ....." and produced her Ten Practical Principles... And, apparently thinking them of inestimable value, reprinted them in e-jewish philanthropy. Mistake, big mistake.

So, to the leaders of PresentTense -- this wasn't about you at all. We wish you great success.

Rwexler

HOPE

For a breath of fresh air and the hope he represents, see Gary Rosenblatt's superb interview with Jerry Silverman, UJC's incoming Chief Executive Officer, in this week's Jewish Week.

The article can be found at: www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c36_a16399/News/New_York.html

Rosenblatt, the Editor and Publisher of the Jewish Week, titled the interview Can UJC Be Saved? Let us hope so. Jerry Silverman's ideas for engagement and listening are so refreshing in an environment and with a current leadership that has done and continues to do neither.

Thanks to reader Paul Jeser for bringing this article to our attention.

Rwexler

CATCHING UP

Just some questions and thoughts:

~ The Conference of Presidents issued a Statement challenging the Obama Administration's position on the "natural settlement growth" issue. This caused at least one commentator (who appears to always criticize Obama) to state that a "...huge crack has surfaced in Obama's Jewish base in the person of Alan Solow, one of the president's closest Chicago friends and long-time supporters," the Chair of the Conference. Talk of hyperbole. Alan was acting, as those of us who know him would expect, responsibly and reasonably as the Chair of the Conference. He understands that, sometimes, principle does have to trump friendship. We congratulate Alan, Malcolm Hoenlein and the Conference.

~ You all remember GA08 Jerusalem. The one where there were, by UJC's ever-changing count, 4,200 in attendance? Have you seen an accounting for that most successful event? Did it make a profit? Break even? Require a subsidy from UJC's Budget? Just asking?

~ And as to GA09 Washington D.C. The one where Registration will be $700 a person. I have heard that a "simple lunch" at an event will cost $85 a person. This could be the most expensive GA on a per capita basis...ever. Is UJC getting an override on every sandwich?

~ Just received an invite to the Jewish National Fund's Annual Conference. A two day event -- $395 Registration Fee. Yes, obviously, it's subsidized....or, maybe, they just know how to run a conference on a cost-effective basis.

~ But GA09 could be very exciting...exciting beyond the promise of the Program. This has the making of an international incident. That would make this GA historic in more ways than one. And, it's possible...very possible.

~ Before the Los Angeles GA, at about this time of year, the then GA National Chair, a wonderful, enthusiastic and creative Atlanta leader, was not consulted on a wholesale change in theme and resigned. No effort was made to retain her leadership even as UJC's professional and lay leaders knew how much time she had already invested in GA planning. Today, even with promises from the outgoing Board Chair that he would not interfere with this year's programming, just who is beginning to insist that UJC's "new new," not fully thought out (of course) venture into "Volunteerism" (or as UJC has now renamed it, "Community Service") be the focal point of GA09? One guess (or two). In LA, no problem, it became the Joe/Kathy Show for better or for worse. Could it happen again?

~ And, as I have been writing about the General Assembly, know that UJC has, once again, convened a GA Task Force focused on the frequency with which the annual Assembly should be held. Apparently, over the strong objection of at least three of the strongest federations in support of UJC, the Task Force will recommend that the GA be held on a biennial basis -- no more every year -- and, in the "off year," regional meetings. To me, a GA relevant to the federations and our partners must be an annual event; to move away from an annual, managed, even a right-sized, focused General Assembly would be an absolute admission of UJC's irrelevancy.

~ Word has reached me and others that the "race" for UJC COO has begun in earnest. During the Search process there were strong opinions expressed that a condition be imposed on the hiring of the new "President and CEO" that that person be mandated to hire (or promote) a Chief Operating Officer. That COO would "free up" the CEO to engage in direct FRD, engage with the federations, and so forth. As the person engaged as CEO comes from "outside," it was argued that a COO familiar with both federations and UJC be given prime consideration by the new CEO. Rather than waiting for Jerry Silverman to take the CEO chair, some staff and consultants to UJC appear to some to already be "positioning themselves" for the position. (One hears that there is an "early favorite" because the "Large City Executives like her/him;" another rumor: "it must be a woman." This in an organization that has demonstrated an antipathy toward women in senior staff positions.) And, of course, Sam Astrof has been serving as COO the last few years, doing a highly professional and ethical job. I would urge Jerry to make his own personnel decisions and keep his own counsel and choose someone who does in fact know how federations work, knows UJC and has a proven ability to raise money.

~ e-jewish philanthropy, which often offers insightful pieces on Jewish communal life, recently published one not the least bit helpful -- Ten Practical Principles for Raising Funds for Social Ventures. Penned by (and listen to this tile) the "Senior VP Israel and Overseas and Director General of UJC Israel." This overly simplistic and pedestrian recital would have gotten the presenter laughed out of a UJA or UJC solicitor training session. Next time, the "workshop for the PresentTensed Fellows" might wish to have a presentation by those who have actually raised real dollars for Social Ventures...like a few that I know at JDC. The Senior VP.......presenter closed with Beware donor fatigue! (emphasis hers)

~ Titles. We all know that in the for profit as well as the non-profit worlds titles often are a determinative of self-worth, and place in the bureaucratic hierarchy (see the paragraph just above for a beaut) as well as a substitute for compensation. UJC is no different, of course. Rieger has two titles -- "President and CEO" -- when one would be enough. (Before he appointed Sam Astrof as COO [Sam is also possessed of two titles -- COO and CFO], I suggested to him privately that he offer the Presidency to a professional with strength who could do that which Howard was unable to do at the time. No surprise -- never heard back.) On July 22, in a Leadership Briefing announcing the Regional I-LEAD Conferences, I was amused/bemused by two UJC titles -- "Senior Executive Advisor for Human Resource Development" and "Director of Learning and Development." I have written before of my suspicion that there is a staff position for the creation of acronyms; now I believe that position has been expanded to included job titles -- the position? "Senior Vice-President for Acronyms and Titles and Other Stuff." The SVPATOS.

It's always something.

Rwexler

AID TO THE ENP -- LESSONS LEARNED...OR IGNORED?

I have written often about the UJC leaders' serial "asks," the most recent for the Ethiopian National Project. Today, in furtherance of their "urgent appeal" for $3.7 million, UJC convened a conference call on the subject which they promoted in multiple e-mails. The presentation on the subject was led by the ubiquitous Toni Young and Sr. VP Development (and, no doubt, other stuff) Eric Levine.

What did they (and the experts accompanying them) say that wasn't in the histrionic Memos that alerted everyone to the "urgent need" and consequent "ask" for $5 million marked down to $3.7 million? Nothing. But here's what they did not say:

~ This "ask" has no support from the federations which have provided the largest amount of funds for the ENP. In fact, UJC was asked by them to shut this "ask" down. They were ignored.

~ That this matter, arising from the Center for Jewish Philanthropy has never been discussed with the Center for Jewish Philanthropy. (Nor was it discussed at the Campaign Executive Committee [or whatever that body is now called].) They were ignored.

~ That there has been no consultation with either JAFI or JDC or, as would have been preferable, both of our partners, the ones who have allocated $10's of millions to the ENP to date on our behalf. They were ignored.

I have been reminded that in the terrible process followed for this ask, there was no planning, no consultation with the federations which have provided the bulk of funds for the ENP or with the Israel and Overseas partners who are on the front line with the Ethiopian Israeli community.

Quite a legacy.

Rwexler

OUR LEADERS RIGHT OR WRONG?

"So we elect these guys to Chair our organizations and then we abandon them. Is that the deal?" This was the question posed to me by one of the best and brightest of federation CEO's. Of course, the question failed to recognize how so many of the federation CEO's "abandoned" their own -- be it at CJF or UJC -- and left those organizations and their professional leaders hanging out to dry.

In my opinion, over the last three and five years respectively. United Jewish Communities' top lay and professional leadership have honored the memory of Michael Jackson every day by a behavior both clinically and institutionally dysfunctional. And, that hasn't been a good thing -- neither for UJC nor for the federations which own it. Yet, there are those who believe (and have articulated it to me) even after stating unequivocally that "they have created a disaster" that "we must continue to support them" -- not attempt to change them or even use the clout of Dues to influence them, but to follow them -- "our leaders right or wrong." This has led these same UJC leaders to believe that they can ignore process, ignore their own By-Laws and ignore the restrictions of their own Budgets with impunity, cloaked, in their opinion, in the protection offered without question or criticism. This should never have been allowed; it should never be allowed again in the future -- neither by UJC's leaders themselves nor by the cheer leading federation leaders.

The brilliant, award winning economist, Paul Krugman, in his column in the New York Times on July 13, wrote about Boiling the Frog. He asked if our country is "...on its way to becoming a boiled frog?" He explained: "I'm referring, of course, to the proverbial frog that, placed in a pot of cold water that is gradually heated, never realizes the danger it's in and is boiled alive...the hypothetical boiled frog is a useful metaphor for a very real problem: the difficulty of responding to disasters that creep up on you a bit at a time." While we know that frogs are traif, UJC has become our "Jewish organizational boiled frog." It all started with the initiation of Operation Promise. Rolled out by Howard Rieger at a Sunday UJC Board of Trustees Meeting in New York, he changed the entire program (previously agreed to by City-size groupings) without so much as a consultation with anyone other than Board Chair Bobby Goldberg. There was astonishment in the room and even objection followed by acquiescence (even as leaders like John Ruskay continued to raise objections to the methodology). Thus, was gradual heating of the cold water begun. Rieger, followed by KanferRieger, learned their "lesson" from the Operation Promise failure -- don't even bother to take matters to the UJC Board for a vote -- and hence the frog was boiled. The result, federation disengagement; UJC achieved irrelevancy; frog boiled.

When information is withheld, when it is not demanded by a Board, there are serious questions as to whether the Board Members are fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities. (In a moment of irony, as I wrote two weeks ago, when a Board Member, taking his responsibility seriously, challenged the UJC Budget Chair, Treasurer and Chair of the Executive-elect, on his failure to offer support to JAFI, the Treasurer and Chair-Elect stridently questioned whether he who raised the question understood his fiduciary responsibilities, thereby turning the entire concept of fiduciary obligation on its head.) Ask a question of these people and your loyalty is questioned. Welcome to my world.

In our "go along to get along" world, those who fail to question, those who cheer the Emperor even while stating privately that they know he wears no clothes, fail in their responsibilities to the very organization they believe in with sincerity. As Richard Haas has written, our duties are to the organization, not to the individuals in transitory positions of power. The claque, however, demonstrates obeisance to the latter and, thereby, have weakened the former and led it down the path of deconstruction. The bottom line: UJC's leaders have lost touch with the federations which own them -- that they have done so wishing only to do good and effect "change," offers them an excuse; the knowledgeable clique and claque that has applauded their every move like a Pavlovian reflex even while knowing that the path(s) chosen led to a precipice must shoulder the blame.

The title of this Post is a spin on the oft-quoted Admiral Stephen Decatur's "my country right or wrong." As you would expect, I prefer Senator Carl Schurz's version: "My country right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." The cheer leaders won't understand but "if wrong, to be set right," is our minimal responsibility in fulfilling our fiduciary obligations to UJC and to our Federations. Otherwise, my friends the frog won't be jumping out of the pot.

Rwexler

THE "NEW, NEW, NEW UJC" -- NU?

Last week I printed a friend's suggestion that UJC close down until Silverman arrives to preclude the organization from doing more harm in the interim. I thought it was suggested as sort of a joke. Then, voila, UJC proved my friend prescient. Some background?

Over 18 months, we have reported on UJC's CEO's and Board Chairs "serial asks" for funding for one pet project after another. You recall -- the IAI (and when the federations failed to respond, JCPA was told to raise the funds itself); Hurricane Ike (and when the federations failed to respond, Houston was left holding the bag for the collective system); the Georgia-Russia War (and when the federations failed to respond...nothing); the Gaza War (and when most federations failed to respond...nothing); $800,000 for the "relocation" to Monsey (and, when only 59 federations responded, a "Confidential" memo cynically disclosing results to encourage more funding); a $5,000,000 ask to fund the Ethiopian National Project (and, when the federations failed to respond in significant ways...well, that's today's primer on the new, new, new UJC).

In the recommendations after ONAD's Year 2, federations were asked to maintain their core allocations and allocate an additional 5% to the ENP. Few did-- Chicago and Houston for two -- and UJC, as was its way even then, did no advocacy and no follow-up. Flash forward to 2009. Kathy Manning acting as UJC's mediator was to mediate, among other things with JAFI/JDC, the amount of core allocation to be distributed to the ENP. In the midst of that "mediation," Rieger, with no authorization to do so, sent a passionate appeal to the federations for $5 million....that's $5,000,000. Aside from thereby disqualifying UJC as the "honest broker" in the mediation, it was as if Rieger picked the number out of the air. No surprise, though there was no accounting of the amount raised, federation response was minimal -- after all KanferRieger had cried "wolf" so often about so much as to lack any credibility.

Then, as reported in an earlier Post, Manning, Kanfer, Rieger and Shep Remis sent a Memo to the federations seeking ENP funding -- for $3.7 million. (that's $3.7 million down from $5 million...how, why? Never explained.) Then, this "ask" was processed with UJC's Executive Committee -- an "Urgent Appeal for Ethiopian National Project" -- and the funds are needed within 6 weeks. In a turnabout -- for them -- UJC has convened a conference call this week to urge federation support of this "as" (as opposed to any other).

Look, no one can deprecate the ENP need. Yet, this entire "process" was undertaken without any...any...consultation with the ENP funding partners, the Jewish Agency and Joint. Part of KanferRieger's "Four Nos" -- "no" consultation, "no" discussion, "no" prioritization, "no" thought. No, no, no...and...no. Just throw the "asks" out there. What will be the result -- same as with all the others? Raise the ENP expectations without basis. Confuse the federations which receive this appeal with the following statement: "UJC Center for Jewish Philanthropies Chair Toni Young (who) reminded the (Executive) Committee that this is 'a voluntary effort and an opportunity to all these communities who wish to be a part of it.'"

The two partners for which there has never...never...been an "ask," JDC and JAFI, are the two partners who have suffered financially under the lack of UJC leadership the most. And I use the phrase "UJC leadership" loosely, to say the least. This latest action is beneath contempt. It is, sadly, the "new, new, new UJC" at work.

Rwexler

A SUGGESTION FROM A FRIEND

A friend, a leader in his federation and one who shares with me the opinion that Jerry Silverman represents the federations' last and best hope for both UJC's survival and its revivification, wrote to suggest the best way for Jerry to potentially succeed. It's pretty extreme, so if you're the least bit squeamish, please stop reading now... for the rest of you...

"UJC should take no further action on any matter until Silverman takes the helm.

The value of doing so is as follows:

1. There appears to be an inexplicable hiatus between the time of Rieger's official departure and Silverman's official starting date;
2. It would prevent last minute damage from individuals who shall go nameless.
3. Perhaps some resources can be focused on (UJC's basic) mission as opposed to (these leaders) constantly changing one.
4. It would reduce the amount of blogging you would need to do."

OK, so 4. above was below the belt.

Now some have told me that Howard is and has been for all intents and purposes physically gone from 25 Broadway; Joe is probably back in his UJC laboratory at Purell feverishly drafting the next 180 degree shift in his plans for UJC. But, just to make sure no further damage to the UJC body politic occurs, my suggestion is: that the entire Executive Management Team (you know the one that has been superimposed above the Senior Management Team) go on a 30 day unpaid furlough. (This would save the organization enough to cover the costs of several lower level professionals who might otherwise be laid off.) Or, more extreme, let's shut down UJC on August 1 (except for UJC Washington) and see if anyone notices anything other than the Dues that would be saved. And that Silverman be implored to hasten his arrival.

What are your suggestions?

Rwexler

COLLECTIVE LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY

A dear friend and frequent correspondent is one who has vast experience in the federation world. In response to my Post of July 19 -- Advocacy and Collective Responsibility -- he/she wrote me a long and thoughtful Addendum. It is printed below, redacted to protect my friend's identity:


"To: Wexler, Richard

Subject: Collective responsibility

One of the other aspects that has contributed to this problem is that the vast majority of federations never were directly on the ONAD committee but were always “represented” by others. These federations, predominantly small and intermediate were never exposed or even informed about the impact of core funding beyond what was publicized by the UJC. For ... JDC and JAFI this usually meant one or two paragraphs condensed into a “mission statement” type of paper. Never any overall comprehensive presentation.

Even when ONAD presented charts and graphs, they were so convoluted that the (federation leaders) not on the committee simply took it and filed it away, sometimes in the circular file. As I recall the ONAD committee, there were something like 19 communities on the committee made up of Chicago and NY annually, 8 other large cities rotating every two years, 4 large intermediate cities rotated every two year, possibly 3 intermediate cities and one or two small communities. Over the life of ONAD I believe there were two cycles after the initial two formative “study years." By my estimate there were probably a total of 32 federations (out of 155) that ever served directly on the committee. While the core allocations came largely from the big cities in real dollars probably 80 % of the federations never sat on the committee and had very little feedback from their “representatives” or from UJC about the importance of the core funding.

As JAFI/JDC ... began sending representatives into the field to visit specific federations for the 10% discretionary funding (over and above core funding) nobody was visiting the federations promoting the core funding assuming that was UJC’s job. In retrospect what would have been a far superior method would have been for UJC to coordinate all of the visits to federation with a uniform message identifying the impact of core funding first and foremost (since this was 90% of the budgets) and having a menu of discretionary projects for (the) organizations (including ORT). The UJC staff handling all of these visits would have been viewed as the “UJC Campaign Staff” treating each federation as the “donor”, developing individualized approaches to each federation based on areas of unique interests. This would have eliminated the competition that evolved, it would have provided uniform education and not ignored the critical element of core funding supposedly representing 90% of all income. It would have been able to address issues about transparency, mission of the organizations, and so forth. It would have also been better able to integrate into the FRD department of UJC as it would have provided a much better link to the “case” for the annual campaign.

If UJC had functioned this way it would have certainly been justified to take a portion of the overseas allocations to cover the budget collectively instead of ignoring this vital component and taking the budget out of each organization individually."

****

As my friend has written, the situation could have been far different today had UJC taken the responsibilities specifically delegated to it at the time of the Merger Agreement seriously...or at all. Instead, however, UJC and its current leadership walked away from its moral obligation as if the obligation either didn't exist or wasn't worthy of their "change mandate."

So what happened? The best/worst evidence is in the pathetic effort to raise federation commitments for the Ethiopian National Project. Begun with Rieger's bathetic letter to Federations earlier this year pleading for $5 million to what this week will be an effort to stir the Executive Committee to a an apparent recommendation to the federations for $3.7 million for the ENP, all at a time when (a) the federations as a whole and individually are staring down the barrel of the economic disaster that is 2009 and (b) JAFI has slashed $75 million in budget and JDC a comparable amount while continuing to fund the ENP on our behalf. Roused to advocacy, UJC's "leadership" (In this instance the original "ask" came from Kanfer, Manning, Toni Young and Shepard Remis -- whose federations' allocations to JAFI and JDC core one might wish to ask about. By the time this "Recommendation" comes to the Executive Committee tomorrow, it is a "CJP Leadership Recommendation" -- you might ask what and who are "CJP Leadership?" Let me know when you get an answer.), picks and chooses the "Urgent Funding Needs" with no consultation with the Joint or Jewish Agency further laying waste to the concept and construct of collective responsibility and our federations' historic partnership.

It is all so sad.

Rwexler

LEADERS WITH COURAGE?

A short time ago the leaders of our organizations -- and, specifically, the Conference of Presidents, UJC, JCPA and AIPAC -- were summoned to a Briefing by President Obama on his stance(s) vis-a-vis Israel. Specifically, our donors and communities have been concerned with (or supportive of) the Administration's strong and unconditional opposition to Israeli settlement growth --even so-called natural growth within the current boundaries of development communities which will clearly be annexed to Israel even under a two-state "solution." As a number of articles about this July 12 meeting have pointed out, our "leaders" were, at best, meek and, at worst, obsequious -- in the JTA, At White House, U.S. Jews offer little resistance to Obama policy on settlements; in The Jewish Week, Mild Flak For Obama on Issue of Settlements; in the Forward, Jewish Leaders Give Obama No Push-Back on Settlement Freeze (wherein one of the leaders, unnamed, who apparently thought she/he was on some sort of White House tour, left "glowing"); and Jonathan Tobin's powerful op-ed in the July 19, Jerusalem Post, A pause for serious self-reflection.

Now, I care not a whit what J Street or the American Jewish Committee have to say to our President. I care a whole lot what the leaders of AIPAC, UJC, JACPA and the Conference of Presidents have to say or not say. It's pretty apparent that they have failed to date to even understand their constituencies', their owners', their members' opinions of the stated Administration policies and thrust. That being the case, it must have been a nice visit -- as Kathy Manning recounted in a Briefing -- in her summary of her White House foray. I am certain that the President and his staff noted with amusement that American Jewish leadership are not yet of one voice (and probably never will be) on the issue framed by his stance on settlement growth. But, it was a nice visit -- these leaders appear to have been "dazzled by the light" as one of my friends put it so perfectly.

There was a day when our leaders stood tall. When Shoshana Cardin, then Chair of the Conference of Presidents, told President George H. W. Bush, that his public statements suggesting that the "Jewish lobby" represented a "Fifth Column" in America were unacceptable and bordered on anti-Semitism. (Shoshana surely put it far better and far stronger than I have just related.) But, that was then...and this is now. Where is the debate today? Where is the united front, if one is possible? Who speaks for me and for you? When Jonathan Tobin concludes that it is time to ask leaders who presume to speak for us "...why they are either silent or rationalizing a policy that they know is wrong," it's time to stop and listen.

A little consultation and a little leadership would be nice.

Rwexler

ADVOCACY AND COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

As I begin it should be clear that I come from a Federation that views its obligations to its collective responsibilities through a prism of tradition, obligation and discipline. The commitment to meet Jewish needs wherever they exist equitably and immediately is a function of our Federation's DNA, our vision of federation purpose and our donors' commitments. We are often referred to as dinosaurs -- and, if we are, we are proud of it. With this admission as a preface, some observations.

Having visited well over 100 federations over the past few years, I believe that I am qualified to conclude that that which propels federation leaders to reduce allocations to JDC and, in more instances, JAFI, is not, at its essence, a matter of philosophy or the organizations' changed circumstance or questions of performance or accountability by our Overseas partners; it is, pure and simple, a matter of communal resource development failure. Today, for example, there are large federations cloaking their reduced allocations to Joint and JAFI core resulting from the devastating collapse of these federations' campaigns in specious arguments about a lack of "transparency" or "outlived their usefulness" or "they fail to be accountable." None of these "issues" has a basis in fact.

Here is the thought process I have observed: a desperate Federation CEO ("CEO 2"), seeing his/her communal resource base crumble, reads that another Federation CEO ("CEO 1") has argued against the overseas allocation to one or both of our system's historic partners. Without regard to the facts, and with no due diligence (how many times have I read letters beginning "I have heard..." or "I have read..."), CEO 2 adopts the same arguments, usually, but not always, wholly specious. The "bandwagon effect" follows. For years, JAFI and JDC could rely on three sources to respond: (1) the agencies themselves respond point-by-point and are ignored, (2) other leading Executives would respond with the facts to their "colleagues" and/or (3) the national organization -- UJA or UIA or CJF -- would respond factually and passionately. Today, the Joint and Agency responses are muted, the federation Executives appear not to be willing to step forward outside their own communities and the national organization is represented by men and women from communities which are themselves unsupportive of the Overseas allocation and, therefor, have no voice.

A companion piece to the breakdown in communal allocations discipline is found in the competition between and among the international organizations for communal funding. In the past, even at a time of declining allocations, JDC and JAFI felt "represented" in the federations by the UJA...and, they were. Today, the internal communal representation of JAFI and, in particular, JDC, frequently make arguments for "their" organization at the expense of the "other." The unfortunate ONAD "process'" sole "contribution" was to increase organizational costs without benefit to any of JDC, JAFI or UJC. UJC's abdication of its moral obligation to advocate for greater resources for both the Joint and Agency, and the consequent decline in core allocations have literally forced all of our system's Israel/international organizations to enhance their North American professional staffing to engage in direct fund raising. This will only increase if collective resource allocations continue their steep fall.

Are there any solutions? Several that I see. (1) Federation Executives who recognize that collective responsibility is the principle that sets the federation system apart from all other charities must step forward and respond, privately and publicly, to those among their chevra who don't care or understand (and, while some do, not enough...not nearly enough). (2) UJC's next leaders must, first, comprehend that collective responsibility is the institution's primary obligation -- without collective responsibility, there is no need for anything but a continental trade association with Dues sufficient to support the salaries that UJC pays -- and, then, its leaders must become the public spokespersons for the collective. (The current UJC leaders appear not to comprehend that the payment of Dues is part of collective responsibility. They don't understand that among so many other things and, therefor, can't articulate it.)

Lay leaders who come from communities that fail to meet a minimum standard for overseas allocations (today, I can think of two [and there are more] who come from communities that fail to make an overseas allocation or one so small as to not register on the Richter Scale of communal responsibility) cannot be made Chairs of, e.g., UJC itself, or of UJC Committees or Work Groups whose primary obligations have to do with Israel or Overseas, no matter how generous or articulate they may be personally.

I find it deplorable that among UJC's current leaders there are those who refuse to "allow" engagement with the federations on allocations issues because, they say, "...it's just yelling at the federations." Friends, it has never been "yelling" -- it's always been about talking about responsibility (which admittedly, to a given federation may sound like "yelling") and, yet, these same UJC leaders never miss a chance to confront a federation which is failing or threatening not to pay its Dues, to threaten and cajole and threaten some more.

In all events, this subject is about institutional obligation -- UJC's and the federations. Advocacy is a discussion that ennobles our organizations. Let's hope the new leadership understands.

Rwexler