Maybe the seminal flaw at The Jewish Federations of North America today is a lack of understanding at the top of the lay/professional period of roles/responsibilities. I am going to attempt to explain, in the most simple of terms, just what those roles/responsibilities are...or should be.
In our system, the professional is the constant; the lay leaders are transient. What does this mean? First, it places a tremendous premium on the talents, the vision,the experiences and the leadership of the professionals who lead us. Where any one of those talents is missing, the trust in the lead professional begins to deteriorate. The lay leadership must be the professionals' partners bringing to their roles the ability to shape policies and build consensus -- things that presumably they have learned through their leadership experiences at their federations and in other organizations.
What I have seen through the experiences of first UJC and now JFNA have been wide leadership swings. The first Chairs were activists and their CEO just tried to please them and the federations at one and the same time; the next two Board Chairs were excellent and generous lay partners (if total delegation is "excellence") to an extremely strong CEO and President and the organization moved forward; the next Chair and the next CEO were disastrous -- to the point that the lay leaders began to micro-manage the organization, the saving grace being the federation push back, minimal though it was, on issues beyond the pale. Thus, over its first decade there were polar imbalances in the lay-professional partnership ending with the Kanfer Chairmanship during which then UJC had no accomplishments (I know -- D.C. and the "marketing/branding "study," a brand change and a new vital CEO) and an ever-widening chasm between the organization and its owners/shareholders.
Now what? Will the lessons of the emergence of the Dockers brand or the positioning of the Limited Stores have any relevance to the federation system? Do the current Chairs even understand their roles? Is anyone working to develop a lingua franca that will tie federations to JFNA in meaningful and relevant ways? Right now I fear that all of the parties are speaking in tongues with each other -- but not "with" each other. Can some group of leaders help forge a common language?
One of my readers explained to me the difference between Moshe Rabeinu and the Lubavicher Rebbe: We know that Moses is dead but we don't know where he is buried; on the other hand we know where the Lubavicher Rebbe is buried, we just don't know if he is dead. JFNA is currently buried at 25 Broadway, New York, NY.
Rwexler
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
GREAT NEWS
Some really great news. Of all the questions I receive from you, the most ask "how is Lester doing?" For all of you, last night Lester Rosenberg, almost mortally injured in a car crash one year ago, attended our Chicago Federation Board meeting. Although physically absolutely limited, Lester looked wonderful -- actually, but for his disabilities, a picture of health. He is sharp, as he told Beth Cherner, our great Development Director, and me -- "I remember every solicitation I've made and every gift." His mind is keen; and he spoke beautifully to the Board from his wheelchair. All of you know how beloved Lester is; so it won't surprise you to learn that our Board members, without regard to age, lined up to welcome Lester, to kiss him and to express our love for him.
Rwexler
Rwexler
Thursday, May 27, 2010
THE DEATH OF THE COLLECTIVE?
"Collective responsibility" has been and is the foundation upon which the federation system has been built. It is that which has distinguished our federations and their work from all...all...other charities and philanthropy. It is embodied in our systemic support for Israel and overseas needs through the Jewish Agency and the JDC; in the dues which we pay to support the JFNA; in our response to disasters; in our support of special campaigns to care for our People in danger or in need wherever they may be; in systemic support for our national agencies; in public statements on matters of urgency for our communities and People; among other things. Collective responsibility has enabled us to demonstrate with pride time and time again that "we are one" and that "no gift touches more lives."
And it is over...over because in large measure the leaders we have elected and engaged have neither an understanding of what collective responsibility means or, if they do understand what it means, they apparently lack the will to advocate for it. This "rebranding" of the collective, led by JFNA, will lead our system over the edge; we are already teetering on the precipice. So I am confused and encouraged by JFNA having devoted not insubstantial time to the very subject on its Board Agenda while meeting somewhere in New Jersey this week. We heard brilliant observations and insights at that Board meeting from Misha Galperin for JAFI, Steve Schwager from JDC, and CEOs Steve Nasatir and Jacob Solomon (Barry Schrage also spoke -- the designated "anti-collective" spokesman). Kathy Manning spoke in strong support of an expansive definition of collective responsibility and JFNA's responsibility for "education" on the issue.
Yet, at one and the same time, just look at the "areas of focus" outlined by Kathy Manning earlier related to "Legislative and Collective Responsibility" -- "Emergency response, Convening (the GA and regional meetings), Public Policy (D.C.), Consulting on merger and leveraging (donor management system) and Advocacy on major Jewish initiatives, e.g., Iran." The end result is the "miniaturization" of collective responsibility. This has been tried before in another context. The so-called "visionary" chief professional of a Large City about fifteen years ago began to argue that work of the Jewish Agency should be restricted to the "aliya of rescue." Given this professional's long-term antipathy toward JAFI, his "advocacy" on the subject was but a transparent attempt to delimit JAFI out of business. That "advocacy" was rejected by the almost unanimous negative reaction from the federation system. (So, this year that professional has led his lay leadership to reject all core funding for JAFI.)
For that professional, this was a conscious effort to delimit and thereby delegitimize. For JFNA's leaders, the delimitation of the collective appears to this writer be an almost unconscious effort to walk away from historic principles and the values inherent in the concept of collective responsibility. Not understanding the concept, they walk away from our values, in part, through a limiting redefinition, and, in large measure, by their silence. And, now, somehow, JFNA suggests that it will rotate 180 degrees and become the advocate it always should have been? And, yes, I know I should be happy about this sea change...and I am. If only I could believe it. Who at JFNA will lead the effort -- those leaders who have sought to delimit advocacy and collective responsibility? Forgive my cynicism.
As William Rhoden, the brilliant New York Times columnist, wrote during the NCAA basketball payoffs of the differences and parallels of Cornell/Kentucky on the eve of their not so epic battle, wrote: "There is nothing tragic about attempting a great leap and falling short. The tragedy is not even trying." And there you have it...to date no one has even been trying.
The failure to comprehend the meaning of collective responsibility impacts JFNA's work and its leaders fail to comprehend the fact. For JFNA Dues are an expression of collective responsibility. No federation...none -- from the largest to the smallest -- receives a quantifiable financial benefit that equals the Dues it pays. Thus, Dues are paid, when they are paid, in recognition of the supposed benefits the system receives from JFNA and out of JFNA's Budget. As collective responsibility as a motivating principle collapses, so will the raison d'etre for the payment of Dues (if that hasn't happened already) and, worse, so will the commitment to the greatest of values of our system. And these guys don't get it. But now they are going to lead the effort to support it?
Now, after some significant discussion at the Jewish Federations of North America Board meeting last Monday attended by, maybe, by best count, 40 federations out of 157 in person, of system-wide broad support for the expression of collective responsibility through federation allocations to meet needs in Israel and overseas, it is up to JFNA's leadership to develop federation support, to build consensus for the binding implementation of the concept through formal action by the federation members. Can the JFNA lay leadership, which has cowered and backed away from any...any...advocacy for these same needs while core allocations have shrunk by in excess of 28% over recent years, now rally the federations? Let's hope so -- for the federations' sake as well as JFNA's.
Thus, my friends, the "rebranding" of collective responsibility has been a most dangerous game. It has taken place without regard for the destruction the miniaturization of collective responsibility will work upon the federations and our system and upon JFNA itself -- the "rebrander." As one of my correspondents wrote in response to the Post "Serious Persons: "The system must come to understand that it is today, as it always has been, about global deliverables, the collective of leadership and purpose -- not spin and individual saviors (however talented). JFNA only mirrors our own wanderings in the wilderness."
Amen.
Rwexler
And it is over...over because in large measure the leaders we have elected and engaged have neither an understanding of what collective responsibility means or, if they do understand what it means, they apparently lack the will to advocate for it. This "rebranding" of the collective, led by JFNA, will lead our system over the edge; we are already teetering on the precipice. So I am confused and encouraged by JFNA having devoted not insubstantial time to the very subject on its Board Agenda while meeting somewhere in New Jersey this week. We heard brilliant observations and insights at that Board meeting from Misha Galperin for JAFI, Steve Schwager from JDC, and CEOs Steve Nasatir and Jacob Solomon (Barry Schrage also spoke -- the designated "anti-collective" spokesman). Kathy Manning spoke in strong support of an expansive definition of collective responsibility and JFNA's responsibility for "education" on the issue.
Yet, at one and the same time, just look at the "areas of focus" outlined by Kathy Manning earlier related to "Legislative and Collective Responsibility" -- "Emergency response, Convening (the GA and regional meetings), Public Policy (D.C.), Consulting on merger and leveraging (donor management system) and Advocacy on major Jewish initiatives, e.g., Iran." The end result is the "miniaturization" of collective responsibility. This has been tried before in another context. The so-called "visionary" chief professional of a Large City about fifteen years ago began to argue that work of the Jewish Agency should be restricted to the "aliya of rescue." Given this professional's long-term antipathy toward JAFI, his "advocacy" on the subject was but a transparent attempt to delimit JAFI out of business. That "advocacy" was rejected by the almost unanimous negative reaction from the federation system. (So, this year that professional has led his lay leadership to reject all core funding for JAFI.)
For that professional, this was a conscious effort to delimit and thereby delegitimize. For JFNA's leaders, the delimitation of the collective appears to this writer be an almost unconscious effort to walk away from historic principles and the values inherent in the concept of collective responsibility. Not understanding the concept, they walk away from our values, in part, through a limiting redefinition, and, in large measure, by their silence. And, now, somehow, JFNA suggests that it will rotate 180 degrees and become the advocate it always should have been? And, yes, I know I should be happy about this sea change...and I am. If only I could believe it. Who at JFNA will lead the effort -- those leaders who have sought to delimit advocacy and collective responsibility? Forgive my cynicism.
As William Rhoden, the brilliant New York Times columnist, wrote during the NCAA basketball payoffs of the differences and parallels of Cornell/Kentucky on the eve of their not so epic battle, wrote: "There is nothing tragic about attempting a great leap and falling short. The tragedy is not even trying." And there you have it...to date no one has even been trying.
The failure to comprehend the meaning of collective responsibility impacts JFNA's work and its leaders fail to comprehend the fact. For JFNA Dues are an expression of collective responsibility. No federation...none -- from the largest to the smallest -- receives a quantifiable financial benefit that equals the Dues it pays. Thus, Dues are paid, when they are paid, in recognition of the supposed benefits the system receives from JFNA and out of JFNA's Budget. As collective responsibility as a motivating principle collapses, so will the raison d'etre for the payment of Dues (if that hasn't happened already) and, worse, so will the commitment to the greatest of values of our system. And these guys don't get it. But now they are going to lead the effort to support it?
Now, after some significant discussion at the Jewish Federations of North America Board meeting last Monday attended by, maybe, by best count, 40 federations out of 157 in person, of system-wide broad support for the expression of collective responsibility through federation allocations to meet needs in Israel and overseas, it is up to JFNA's leadership to develop federation support, to build consensus for the binding implementation of the concept through formal action by the federation members. Can the JFNA lay leadership, which has cowered and backed away from any...any...advocacy for these same needs while core allocations have shrunk by in excess of 28% over recent years, now rally the federations? Let's hope so -- for the federations' sake as well as JFNA's.
Thus, my friends, the "rebranding" of collective responsibility has been a most dangerous game. It has taken place without regard for the destruction the miniaturization of collective responsibility will work upon the federations and our system and upon JFNA itself -- the "rebrander." As one of my correspondents wrote in response to the Post "Serious Persons: "The system must come to understand that it is today, as it always has been, about global deliverables, the collective of leadership and purpose -- not spin and individual saviors (however talented). JFNA only mirrors our own wanderings in the wilderness."
Amen.
Rwexler
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
STUBBORN
Well JFNA is nothing if not defensive about its own ideas -- good or bad. I guess that's a good thing...maybe not...particularly if that defensiveness is cloaked in "attitude." The JFNA Board really liked...really liked...the presentation at its meeting yesterday on #ish -- the latest new, new thing. 10,000 hits claimed on the ish website, otherwise intelligent people incorporating ish into their presentations to the point of a curious and unfunny redundancy.
Now, here is my suggestion: can #ish, shut it down. Merely circulate I Am A Jew, the upbeat work of a variety of young Israeli musicians. You can find it on YouTube or at //blogs.jta.org/telegraph/article/2010/05/11/2394761/im-a-jew. 50,000 hits to date I'm told.
rwexler
Now, here is my suggestion: can #ish, shut it down. Merely circulate I Am A Jew, the upbeat work of a variety of young Israeli musicians. You can find it on YouTube or at //blogs.jta.org/telegraph/article/2010/05/11/2394761/im-a-jew. 50,000 hits to date I'm told.
rwexler
Monday, May 24, 2010
HMMMMMM?
A while ago Jerry Silverman spoke to the Boston CJP Federation Board. I don't know his subject matter but, perhaps he was there in response to the following scenario:
Before Jerry's visit to his home federation, Barry Schrage, the Boston CEO who has led his community quite effectively in directions that would suggest that he has no use for our system's overseas allocations methodology and little need for the federation construct that has rewarded him handsomely over the decades, sent an e-mail to his Large City Federation colleagues. Therein Schrage informed his fellow CEOs that the Boston CJP leadership, under the circumstances of falling campaign and great needs, could not support JFNA Dues at the level called for by a $30.3 million 2010-2011 Budget.
As I understand it Steve Nasatir and others of Barry's colleagues responded, urging his fellow CEOs to support JFNA Dues at this critical time...perhaps Schrage responded to Nasatir and friends, or others did, I do not know. What I do know is that Barry shared his federation's decision with his fellow CEOs as a subtle urging that their communities follow Boston's lead. Let us hope they don't.
At the birth of what is today JFNA, the totality of the federation system -- each and every community -- committed to (a) pay Dues and (b) hold their Israel and overseas allocations at the 1999 levels for two years. In UJC's first year only one federation breached this obligation -- that federation was Boston. And, in Year 2, UJC was further undermined as a number of federations joined Boston -- none of them Large Cities. Now Schrage is at it again.
So, my hope is that Jerry Silverman, privy to the Schrage correspondence before his appearance urged Boston's leadership in no uncertain terms to (a) support Dues in full while (b) reinstating its allocation to Israel and overseas needs to JAFI and JDC. I fear that Jerry is just too nice to have done so -- at least in public.
Rwexler
Before Jerry's visit to his home federation, Barry Schrage, the Boston CEO who has led his community quite effectively in directions that would suggest that he has no use for our system's overseas allocations methodology and little need for the federation construct that has rewarded him handsomely over the decades, sent an e-mail to his Large City Federation colleagues. Therein Schrage informed his fellow CEOs that the Boston CJP leadership, under the circumstances of falling campaign and great needs, could not support JFNA Dues at the level called for by a $30.3 million 2010-2011 Budget.
As I understand it Steve Nasatir and others of Barry's colleagues responded, urging his fellow CEOs to support JFNA Dues at this critical time...perhaps Schrage responded to Nasatir and friends, or others did, I do not know. What I do know is that Barry shared his federation's decision with his fellow CEOs as a subtle urging that their communities follow Boston's lead. Let us hope they don't.
At the birth of what is today JFNA, the totality of the federation system -- each and every community -- committed to (a) pay Dues and (b) hold their Israel and overseas allocations at the 1999 levels for two years. In UJC's first year only one federation breached this obligation -- that federation was Boston. And, in Year 2, UJC was further undermined as a number of federations joined Boston -- none of them Large Cities. Now Schrage is at it again.
So, my hope is that Jerry Silverman, privy to the Schrage correspondence before his appearance urged Boston's leadership in no uncertain terms to (a) support Dues in full while (b) reinstating its allocation to Israel and overseas needs to JAFI and JDC. I fear that Jerry is just too nice to have done so -- at least in public.
Rwexler
Sunday, May 23, 2010
BUDGET...SO TO SPEAK
The JFNA Board, at its meetings today and tomorrow in Jersey City (or somewhere in New Jersey), will approve the JFNA 2010-2011 Budget with accolades for the "process" (there was none that measured up to any federation budget process) and the result. The accolades go so far as one JFNA leader calling it "the best process ever" at the JFNA Executive -- either that person is running for higher office or his federation's budget process is really verklempt.
In fact, the Budget is brilliant!! It offers not a clue as to what much of the $30.3 million will actually be spent on a line item by line item basis. It appears that JFNA views $30.3 million as fungible -- we already know that there are some federation leaders who believe the Budget to be beyond question. It is as opaque as a brick wall when the federations have been called upon themselves for greater transparency and when JFNA leaders have demanded greater transparency from JAFI and JDC.
Let's look at some of the brilliance:
~ The "staffing complement (sic)" has been reduced to achieve a savings of $300,000; yet, "[A] pool for promotions and increases was budgeted for $391,000." So, while your federation has to continue furloughs and lay-offs, JFNA is allocating a portion of your Dues to salary increases. Must have had a good year.
~ The "federation consulting fund" which yielded much-trumpeted small grants to federations was cut by $100,000 to $300,000. Why -- "...to allow for a full evaluation of the Fund's effectiveness..." Huh?
~ To "prove" that the 2009 FLI (you remember that flop???) had some value, apparently at the demand of the Board Chair, $250,000 was added to the Budget for a "global planning table." (If you can figure out why a global planning table [teak, cherry wood, plywood?) is valued at $250,000, you may be eligible for one of those grants from the federation consulting fund. Then, again, perhaps, JFNA had planned to send JAFI and the Joint off to a "Planning Table" much as they were cast off to ONAD ;
~ Because some minuscule group of JFNA "insiders" demanded it, $75,000 will be allocated to secure JFNA's "seat" at the Sheatufim table (and don't forget that you have already spent $750,000 on Sheatufim for what appears to have had no ROI). Oh, hold on -- at Sheatufim, our leaders rub arms with a few Israeli philanthropists, and speak at their programs...and, and, someone at JFNA committed the organization to a five-year $250,000 per annum grant (with no authority to do so, so $75,000 (down from $250,000) is a real deal;
~ There is a $400,000 "contingency fund" with no requirement of Executive Committee action to approve its expenditure;
~ There is no Budget support for the New Orleans GA -- a $500,000 Budget savings -- with no real explanation of where those funds will be found -- other than we have a new meetings manager "which will seek to increase sponsorship revenues." Yikes.
~ There are 19 pages of "Priority Programs" and another 38 pages of "Other Programs" (OY!!) with pretty specific narratives by category -- "Program Name, Description, Basis for Activity, Outcomes (this year and Next)" but no detail whatsoever...that's no detail whatsoever...on the attributable cost by Program.
~ And no one seems to care that the Budget makes no revenue assumptions or projections. Even as JFNA knows of multiple federations (at least 10 and probably many, many more) will not pay full Dues in 2010, JFNA just sends out "payment plans" and believes they will be met this year. So, if your federation owes, say $650,000 in unpaid 2009-10 Dues, JFNA expects you to pay this year. As I have indicated elsewhere, this is fantasy-land stuff.
Please read your copy of the Budget -- if you get one. Questions are in order -- they even ask them at Budget and allocations meetings in New York.
Rwexler
In fact, the Budget is brilliant!! It offers not a clue as to what much of the $30.3 million will actually be spent on a line item by line item basis. It appears that JFNA views $30.3 million as fungible -- we already know that there are some federation leaders who believe the Budget to be beyond question. It is as opaque as a brick wall when the federations have been called upon themselves for greater transparency and when JFNA leaders have demanded greater transparency from JAFI and JDC.
Let's look at some of the brilliance:
~ The "staffing complement (sic)" has been reduced to achieve a savings of $300,000; yet, "[A] pool for promotions and increases was budgeted for $391,000." So, while your federation has to continue furloughs and lay-offs, JFNA is allocating a portion of your Dues to salary increases. Must have had a good year.
~ The "federation consulting fund" which yielded much-trumpeted small grants to federations was cut by $100,000 to $300,000. Why -- "...to allow for a full evaluation of the Fund's effectiveness..." Huh?
~ To "prove" that the 2009 FLI (you remember that flop???) had some value, apparently at the demand of the Board Chair, $250,000 was added to the Budget for a "global planning table." (If you can figure out why a global planning table [teak, cherry wood, plywood?) is valued at $250,000, you may be eligible for one of those grants from the federation consulting fund. Then, again, perhaps, JFNA had planned to send JAFI and the Joint off to a "Planning Table" much as they were cast off to ONAD ;
~ Because some minuscule group of JFNA "insiders" demanded it, $75,000 will be allocated to secure JFNA's "seat" at the Sheatufim table (and don't forget that you have already spent $750,000 on Sheatufim for what appears to have had no ROI). Oh, hold on -- at Sheatufim, our leaders rub arms with a few Israeli philanthropists, and speak at their programs...and, and, someone at JFNA committed the organization to a five-year $250,000 per annum grant (with no authority to do so, so $75,000 (down from $250,000) is a real deal;
~ There is a $400,000 "contingency fund" with no requirement of Executive Committee action to approve its expenditure;
~ There is no Budget support for the New Orleans GA -- a $500,000 Budget savings -- with no real explanation of where those funds will be found -- other than we have a new meetings manager "which will seek to increase sponsorship revenues." Yikes.
~ There are 19 pages of "Priority Programs" and another 38 pages of "Other Programs" (OY!!) with pretty specific narratives by category -- "Program Name, Description, Basis for Activity, Outcomes (this year and Next)" but no detail whatsoever...that's no detail whatsoever...on the attributable cost by Program.
~ And no one seems to care that the Budget makes no revenue assumptions or projections. Even as JFNA knows of multiple federations (at least 10 and probably many, many more) will not pay full Dues in 2010, JFNA just sends out "payment plans" and believes they will be met this year. So, if your federation owes, say $650,000 in unpaid 2009-10 Dues, JFNA expects you to pay this year. As I have indicated elsewhere, this is fantasy-land stuff.
Please read your copy of the Budget -- if you get one. Questions are in order -- they even ask them at Budget and allocations meetings in New York.
Rwexler
Friday, May 21, 2010
"WHAT, ME WORRY?"
I remember fondly, many of us do, MAD Magazine, of blessed memory. It's iconic cover boy was the doofus Alfred E. Neumann, who uttered the constant refrain: "What, me worry?" And, friends, there we have it -- the tag line that should be on each piece of JFNA letterhead, on every Leadership Briefing, right under The Jewish Federations of North America -- What, Me Worry?
Dues? What, Me Worry? Those Yemenite Jews we used federation funds to place with the Satmar in Monsey, New York? What, Me Worry? The federations who will or cannot pay their Dues? What, Me Worry? Federation needs and wants? What, me worry? What is our cause, what is our purpose, what are the values and principles we cherish? What, me worry? What, me worry? What, me worry?
These are functions not of a lack of interest in the federation system; these are the results of a national organization that has placed itself in the hands of lay leaders who don't know how federations work. While Jerry Silverman has now visited over 50 federations since his engagement as President and CEO, where have JFNA's leaders gone to learn? Worse, the professional mentoring that seems to be going on consists of: "don't do this, don't do that..."
Assume that JFNA and many federations want change...transformational change...of those federations which need it. Has any thought been given to the reality that one can't change that which one doesn't understand. Where is the understanding of organizational guru James Collins' mandate that change cannot succeed if one ignores the organization's "timeless values and historic principles" when those in leadership seem to know not what they are or where to go to learn them?
But...what, me worry? No. No. No. And no.
Rwexler
Dues? What, Me Worry? Those Yemenite Jews we used federation funds to place with the Satmar in Monsey, New York? What, Me Worry? The federations who will or cannot pay their Dues? What, Me Worry? Federation needs and wants? What, me worry? What is our cause, what is our purpose, what are the values and principles we cherish? What, me worry? What, me worry? What, me worry?
These are functions not of a lack of interest in the federation system; these are the results of a national organization that has placed itself in the hands of lay leaders who don't know how federations work. While Jerry Silverman has now visited over 50 federations since his engagement as President and CEO, where have JFNA's leaders gone to learn? Worse, the professional mentoring that seems to be going on consists of: "don't do this, don't do that..."
Assume that JFNA and many federations want change...transformational change...of those federations which need it. Has any thought been given to the reality that one can't change that which one doesn't understand. Where is the understanding of organizational guru James Collins' mandate that change cannot succeed if one ignores the organization's "timeless values and historic principles" when those in leadership seem to know not what they are or where to go to learn them?
But...what, me worry? No. No. No. And no.
Rwexler
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
MORE STUFF
Some idle thoughts:
~ An addition to "what I'm reading now:" Please consider adding Tablet Magazine to your reading list and, in particular, the exciting work of correspondent Alison Hoffman.
~ For more flabbergasting reading try the 2008 JFNA Form 990 now appearing on the almost impenetrable JFNA website. I think you will find the reported compensation of the immediate past CEO to be as incomprehensible as I did. Learn more about how your Dues have been spent.
Want more? See how the buy-out of JFNA's space at 111 was applied in full to build-out the space at 25 Broadway (and appears to have fallen $1.7 million short) over and above the landlord's contribution; how JFNA's meeting consultants were paid $604 thousand; see how much Dues your federation paid in relationship to others...read it and weep.
~ At its Governance meetings last week, JDC leaders were urged to double their personal commitments to the Joint -- commitments that already total $4,000,000 annually. Didn't sound like there was much in the way of first encouraging the Board members to maintain their federation Annual Campaign commitments -- in fact, there were none. Didn't sound to me as if any one present from JFNA urged that these leaders first commit their contributions to their Federations and then to the JDC. In other words, the beat goes on.
~ After its woeful (non-existent?) Cash collections effort at 2009 year-end, JFNA reported to a closed circle of its leadership that cash to the Joint was down $5.4 million or 9%; cash to JAFI down $18.3 million or 12% (without mentioning that those cuts were from historic lows in 2008 collections). These results were even more dismal as they included designated project funding by the federations. So, what has JFNA done since announcing these dismal results which were compounded by JFNA's own timidity and failed promises of a vigorous 2009 collection effort? Nothing. Wouldn't you think that, much like the best federations, JFNA might have organized a year around lay-driven cash effort so that at year-end 2010 the results might be better? You might think so...but you would be wrong. Too much on their plate (#ish, I-Philanthropy), apparently.
Rwexler
~ An addition to "what I'm reading now:" Please consider adding Tablet Magazine to your reading list and, in particular, the exciting work of correspondent Alison Hoffman.
~ For more flabbergasting reading try the 2008 JFNA Form 990 now appearing on the almost impenetrable JFNA website. I think you will find the reported compensation of the immediate past CEO to be as incomprehensible as I did. Learn more about how your Dues have been spent.
Want more? See how the buy-out of JFNA's space at 111 was applied in full to build-out the space at 25 Broadway (and appears to have fallen $1.7 million short) over and above the landlord's contribution; how JFNA's meeting consultants were paid $604 thousand; see how much Dues your federation paid in relationship to others...read it and weep.
~ At its Governance meetings last week, JDC leaders were urged to double their personal commitments to the Joint -- commitments that already total $4,000,000 annually. Didn't sound like there was much in the way of first encouraging the Board members to maintain their federation Annual Campaign commitments -- in fact, there were none. Didn't sound to me as if any one present from JFNA urged that these leaders first commit their contributions to their Federations and then to the JDC. In other words, the beat goes on.
~ After its woeful (non-existent?) Cash collections effort at 2009 year-end, JFNA reported to a closed circle of its leadership that cash to the Joint was down $5.4 million or 9%; cash to JAFI down $18.3 million or 12% (without mentioning that those cuts were from historic lows in 2008 collections). These results were even more dismal as they included designated project funding by the federations. So, what has JFNA done since announcing these dismal results which were compounded by JFNA's own timidity and failed promises of a vigorous 2009 collection effort? Nothing. Wouldn't you think that, much like the best federations, JFNA might have organized a year around lay-driven cash effort so that at year-end 2010 the results might be better? You might think so...but you would be wrong. Too much on their plate (#ish, I-Philanthropy), apparently.
Rwexler
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
MAKE THAT "ALMOST A CRITICAL DAY..."
Yesterday, as we reported, JFNA, Federation, the Joint and JAFI leaders convened in NYC to resolve issues that brought the Joint to the precipice (and beyond) of leaving the system. Best I can tell -- a lot of talk and crisis averted...for the moment.
How can I tell that nothing more occurred: I read the JFNA Leadership Briefing -- JFNA, JDC, JAFI Agree to Pursue Funding Framework -- one of the least informative releases in a history of press releases. Eventually those of you who haven't seen it will be able to find it on the JFNA website -- as of this moment, it hasn't made it there (probably because the chachams in the Communications area are trying to find a few more cliches to insert in the quotes attributed to the organizations' leaders. Summing them all up, and reading between the lines, "we have a long, long, long way to go before there is sh'lom bayit." Keep looking at www.jewishfederations.org. While the Briefing is hysterical in its creative way of saying nothing, it is also quite sad.
The parties reviewed a Federation-generated proposal that would have created a long overdue national advocacy/education role, a methodology for determining a minimum local partnership share for overseas needs, and a pool from the organization's' core budgets that would be evaluated at a JFNA "planning table," the last being a sop (accompanied by a $250,000 2011 Budget allocation) to JFNA'S Chair justifying the wasted hours in preparation for and execution of the ill-fated 2009 FLI. I don't know what were the areas of agreement if any; I don't know the areas of disagreement, if any. I only know that JFNA should win the 2010 Heroes Award for creative p.r. (so good that part of its release on "#ish" made the New York Times yesterday). They are great -- and totally uninformative.
So, it's on to...the next meeting, I guess.
Rwexler
How can I tell that nothing more occurred: I read the JFNA Leadership Briefing -- JFNA, JDC, JAFI Agree to Pursue Funding Framework -- one of the least informative releases in a history of press releases. Eventually those of you who haven't seen it will be able to find it on the JFNA website -- as of this moment, it hasn't made it there (probably because the chachams in the Communications area are trying to find a few more cliches to insert in the quotes attributed to the organizations' leaders. Summing them all up, and reading between the lines, "we have a long, long, long way to go before there is sh'lom bayit." Keep looking at www.jewishfederations.org. While the Briefing is hysterical in its creative way of saying nothing, it is also quite sad.
The parties reviewed a Federation-generated proposal that would have created a long overdue national advocacy/education role, a methodology for determining a minimum local partnership share for overseas needs, and a pool from the organization's' core budgets that would be evaluated at a JFNA "planning table," the last being a sop (accompanied by a $250,000 2011 Budget allocation) to JFNA'S Chair justifying the wasted hours in preparation for and execution of the ill-fated 2009 FLI. I don't know what were the areas of agreement if any; I don't know the areas of disagreement, if any. I only know that JFNA should win the 2010 Heroes Award for creative p.r. (so good that part of its release on "#ish" made the New York Times yesterday). They are great -- and totally uninformative.
So, it's on to...the next meeting, I guess.
Rwexler
Monday, May 17, 2010
A CRITICAL DAY IN THE LIFE OF...
Today leaders of the Joint, the Jewish Agency and JFNA will meet at 25 Broadway in a meeting scheduled weeks ago but now with an urgency and an agenda the catalyst for which was the Joint's roll-out of its threat to leave the system in its wake as it embarked on a federation-by-federation onslaught to change the "split" between JAFI/JDC in its favor. In so doing, the Joint would ignore the fact that it agreed with JAFI over the past months (for reasons clear only to debaters and lawyers and Joint leaders, JDC would like you to believe they have been "burdened" by the current split since a 1952 agreement, even as the Joint has entered into agreement after agreement with the same split since that time) to essentially retain the split of core at current percentages while JFNA (which was to be solely a mediator), chose to rewrite the deal in part to protect ORT!! Bizarre? Yes. Especially when one looks at the realities of current distributions to JAFI and JDC from America.
So, now, JFNA will have to rely once again on Large City Federation Executives to pull its chestnuts from the fire. Some form of real advocacy may emerge and JFNA leaders will no doubt try to save face by imposing a "global planning table" (for which they have budgeted $250,000 for 2011 for no apparent purpose) on JAFI/JDC. All this while, as John Ruskay has pointed out, the Joint is in reality already the recipient of 1/3 of federation allocations when designated allocations are included. Perhaps at the meeting someone will point out that even as the Joint agreed as a condition precedent to the meeting taking place to remove the most threatening "conditions" in its letters to select federations from the "table," it is, in reality, and has been, implementing them with on-going FRD efforts in multiple federations, many of which are just too weak today to push back.
There is another reality that won't be discussed. In 2005 as I realized that the then UJC was not going to engage in resource development action or advocacy for Israel and overseas needs, I met with JDC leaders at the Joint offices in New York. There I plead with them to join JAFI in a continental advocacy effort -- one in which the two organizations would ask UJC to join and, if not, the two organizations together would go forward. We had a good discussion; the leaders were extremely gracious. Weeks later the Joint advised me that they did not wish to join JAFI in such an effort but wished to continue to await UJC meeting its responsibilities. I was disappointed but not surprised; and I was frustrated as I already knew that UJC's leaders were not going to meet those responsibilities (or, for the next five years, any others as to the Joint, JAFI or, for that matter, the federations).
Is it too late now, after a decade of neglect, for JFNA to meet its obligations> Even if propped up by Chicago, New York, Cleveland and others, I fear that that is the circumstance. I hope I am wrong.
Rwexler
So, now, JFNA will have to rely once again on Large City Federation Executives to pull its chestnuts from the fire. Some form of real advocacy may emerge and JFNA leaders will no doubt try to save face by imposing a "global planning table" (for which they have budgeted $250,000 for 2011 for no apparent purpose) on JAFI/JDC. All this while, as John Ruskay has pointed out, the Joint is in reality already the recipient of 1/3 of federation allocations when designated allocations are included. Perhaps at the meeting someone will point out that even as the Joint agreed as a condition precedent to the meeting taking place to remove the most threatening "conditions" in its letters to select federations from the "table," it is, in reality, and has been, implementing them with on-going FRD efforts in multiple federations, many of which are just too weak today to push back.
There is another reality that won't be discussed. In 2005 as I realized that the then UJC was not going to engage in resource development action or advocacy for Israel and overseas needs, I met with JDC leaders at the Joint offices in New York. There I plead with them to join JAFI in a continental advocacy effort -- one in which the two organizations would ask UJC to join and, if not, the two organizations together would go forward. We had a good discussion; the leaders were extremely gracious. Weeks later the Joint advised me that they did not wish to join JAFI in such an effort but wished to continue to await UJC meeting its responsibilities. I was disappointed but not surprised; and I was frustrated as I already knew that UJC's leaders were not going to meet those responsibilities (or, for the next five years, any others as to the Joint, JAFI or, for that matter, the federations).
Is it too late now, after a decade of neglect, for JFNA to meet its obligations> Even if propped up by Chicago, New York, Cleveland and others, I fear that that is the circumstance. I hope I am wrong.
Rwexler
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
