IF WE TRIED OPERATION EXODUS TODAY...CONT'D

So I posed the question whether we could stage Operation Exodus today? I concluded for variety of reasons, including the condition of our national organization, that we could not. In a brilliant Comment, one Anonymous commentator violently disagreed:

"That is a ridiculous question. Well, of course we could stage Exodus.

First, we would need to bring the Global Planning Table together. We would have to agree what share of the budget would go to the Ethiopian National Project, Sheatufim and JCPA for advocacy of some form or another.

We would then create a worthless competition pitting JDC against JAFI to see who could undermine the other for their share of the "split". We would criticize both JAFI and JDC for having any planning meetings at all that did not invite the JFNA Board Chair

We would vet each proposal and make sure that the planning table's personal friends each got a share of the pie. Then we would see what Large Federations wanted to unload currently funded programs that they could bury in the new Exodus campaign to get off their funding backs - oh, and by the way, we would have to hire a few employees that the Large Federations wanted to feather bed off their payroll. Or some past failed consultants.

Of course the campaign would be headed by a wonderful volunteer whose community currently only gives 4.7% of their campaign overseas.

Some of the Federations would have wonderfully successful campaigns! But some of them would never actually forward the proceeds and we would have a gap of 35% between what was "raised" and what arrived.

And then would come the cash collections: we would put together a "Collection Table", bang on the table, go home and declare it a victory.

We would schedule an opening Exodus campaign cabinet meeting. The Board Chair would be waiting to see if he/she had to get on the plane to come or wait and see if the meeting would postpone and the trip would be unnecessary.

Steinhardt and the Bronfman’s would decide that they wanted ExodusNext to be a part of Birthright, because Exodus will only be successful if the kids go on a holiday trip to Israel.

Everybody else would either write their check directly to JDC or JAFI or to the new organization that may emerge someday."

There is often great truth in satire. Isn't there?

Friends, I have been overwhelmed by the e-mail responses to my earlier Post on the subject. If JFNA's leaders cared about your opinions...we already know how they feel about mine...they might learn of the growing concern men and women...leaders in their federations and significant donors...have with how our national organization offers no comfort that, unlike UJA or CJF, it could lead us during times that call for leadership. We have a reactive JFNA -- except in the proactive marketing tripe like #ish, in the ridiculous transfer of a small group of Yemenite Jews to Monsey, NY and in the great work of its Washington Office and in leading our response to disasters -- to the conversion issue (about which they had been forewarned on these pages and in more credible places months earlier, to the catastrophic decline in allocations to the core budgets of JDC/JAFI (even though they had been urged to take action for months if not years), to the failure to respond to the economic crisis in a manner that might have aided the federations, and on and on.

And, so this crisis will grow so long as JFNA has a lay leadership disconnected from its constituency.

Rwexler

COULD WE STAGE OPERATION EXODUS TODAY?

My friend Harvey Barnett and I co-Chair Chicago's 20th Anniversary Commemoration Committee of Operation Exodus. As I was preparing a brief report on the Exodus Campaign, the last part of which I was privileged to Chair for our system, I began to reflect on whether we in North America could successfully mount such an effort today. What if rather than 20 years ago, we were at this moment on the cusp of the Exodus of 1,000,000 of our People from captivity? How would or could we respond?

First a look back. As Gerry Nagel, z'l, wrote so brilliantly as a witness to history in his history, Operation Exodus, in 1989 the Government of Israel turned to UJA and to Marvin Lender, then Chair-elect of the United Jewish Appeal, and a mega-donor, to assure that UJA would plan and mount a national campaign to support the Israeli Government's commitment of $3 billion to deliver the Jews from behind the Iron Curtain (a curtain which opened shortly after the Campaign began). Lender, in turn, could count on the outreach of Max Fisher, z'l, Les Wexner, the Bronfmans, Tisches, Crowns, Annenbergs and so many others to whom they would reach -- all of whom were represented in or available to the reach of UJA lay leaders. The UJA professional staff was trained in the art of solicitation and the cause was compelling. At the personal invitation of Lender, Fisher and Wexner,the most major donors raised $58,000,000 at what became known as the "Breakfast of Champions" (and even more when the numbers pouring out of the then FSU had increased beyond our dreams at what would be known as the Rabin Dinner two years later where $67 million was raised in one sitting). UJA lay leaders disbursed across the country to inspire and solicit -- even ahead of the federations' "approval" of a $420 million Campaign Goal (which was later increased and, at the Campaign's end, approached $1 billion).

Let's fast forward twenty years. Assume as before, that a grass roots and organized communal advocacy effort for the the freedom of our People in a literal captivity has been on-going and that the Government of Israel perceives that the conditions are ripe for Operation Exodus 2010. What might happen today -- the UJA is no longer. Marvin Lender has been invited out of the system, Max Fisher has passed away. First, where would the Government turn? To the Conference of Presidents I would think where Malcolm would point them in the direction of JFNA. And there the sense of urgency would be processed into dust by its leadership.

I remember meetings in the Prime Minister's Office over the past decade where the Prime Minister urgently asked for our system's support and a then UJC Chair responded: "We'll go back and talk to the federations and get back to you." Not even a "Prime Minister, you can be assured of UJC's leadership's support and we will urge our federations to join in this effort."

Twenty years ago, the men and women in leadership of UJA saw the crisis as an opportunity to write a brilliant chapter in modern Jewish history, relied on JAFI and JDC with trust born of years of working together, and acted with the Government of Israel. Today, if experience is to be our guide, JFNA would tell the Government, "we have to take this to the federations and get back to you" -- as some suggested even then. Asked "when," the answer would be "we'll get back to you." With contacts with major Foundations through what's called the new federation CEO/JFNA/foundation "Tarrytown Process," where Large City Federation Executives and the JFNA CEO meet with the largest of Foundations which participate, JFNA has some "talking privileges" but it lacks the powerful presence that UJA once had to convene the most major of donors to kick-start a Campaign -- it couldn't do it during the Israel Emergency Campaign (the success of which was the result of federations' [not the then UJC's) recognition of the crisis or Operation Promise (the failure of which could be laid at UJC's leaders' feet) and its links are even weaker today. JFNA would also demand weeks to "vet the budget" for Operation Exodus and to "determine priorities" -- a process it would put in the hands of a "Special Task Force" or "Summit." (That would be part of the "we'll get back to you" spirit.)

Twenty years ago there were bonds of trust between the national Jewish federation-centric organizations and the federations themselves; there were strong lay leaders in every community of every City-size engaged with the national organizations, with JAFI and the Joint. Today the fundamental trust so vital to federations' and their national organization's is breaking down everywhere -- our donors choose to "bowl alone," and our federations follow; JFNA lacks any focus, rousing itself only to deal with periodic crises -- hurricane relief, the "conversion crisis." Think of who our leaders were then; and look at the ones we have today.

To me, the question I posed for this Post, sadly answers itself. The answer begs the question -- how do we make federations relevant today and how do the federations then make JFNA relevant to them?

What do you think?

Rwexler

THE JEWISH LEADERSHIP FORUM -- REVISITED

Since my strong (my word) and "sarcastic" (others) take on this year's 15th Annual Jewish Leadership Forum, I have learned that 2010 represented a year of real and positive change for the JLF -- the kind of change that were it happening elsewhere at JFNA, we would have an organization in which to take great pride.

I kvetched that after 15 years, it was long past time for there to be a plan and a purpose for the JLF that has heretofore been lacking. I learned that new leadership, with no knowledge of my suggestions, and having examined at the least the 2009 Aspen JLF, determined to effect changes and did. The JLF Plan included:

Objective: Present a world class conference to continue the education and development of committed philanthropists with regard to their Judaism (especially reinforcing the commandment of tzedakah) and philanthropy. There will be an element of reward/recognition for participants’ contributions to the Jewish community, and the conference will also serve to re-energize participants’ commitment to tzedakah.

Description: A three day conference, in a compelling venue, with a mix of: presentations and discussion panels led by experts (some of whom may be drawn from the participants); group discussions and workshops/working sessions led by participants; and Jewish study/spirituality. A significant portion of the programming will be designed to foster connections amongst participants so they can help, advise and support one another, and share philanthropic ideas and best practices.

Target Audience (30-100): Tzedakists (philanthropists motivated by the Jewish commandment of tzedakah) who have demonstrated a commitment to generously giving of both their time and financial resources, ideally in a leadership capacity.

With a careful selection of participants and a strong and lengthy "message from our sponsor," and a well thought-out survey post-JLF, I, the cynic, have every confidence that the JLF, part of JFNA's "Operation Breakthrough" can be a building block upon which to construct the bridge to the next generation of federation leaders and philanthropists. (More on Operation Breakthrough in a Post next month.)

How did this happen? A committed lay Chair of Operation Breakthrough, Gil Palter, Gil's wife, one of this year's JLF Co-Chairs, and a brilliant young JFNA professional, Danyelle Neuman, took the bit in their teeth and did it themselves. Perhaps that's the way that change will finally take place within JFNA.

Kal ha'kavod.

Rwexler

SECRECY CONFOUNDED

~ The Boston Jewish Week scooped the rest of Jewish media and the Washington Federation disclosing that a senior professional at the CJP (the Boston federation) had been offered the D.C. Federation CEO position and had turned it down -- perhaps as a result of receiving a promotion in Boston. As is typical in these circumstance, the story evolved into "who told you about that" and "why did you print it" rather than with the substance that one flailing federation had reached out to a a failing one for the CEO position to succeed Dr. Misha Galperin. Shame. Shame. How terrible. Tsk. Tsk.

In Jewish communal life there are never...never ever..."candidates" for CEO positions because of the absolute shame that would attach to a disclosed interviewee if he or she was not "the chosen one." (And, the converse -- the shame to the federation having extended an offer that is rejected.) For some, the selection process in their minds is the Jewish communal equivalent of the Lebron James (formerly "The King") search for a new home. So, candidates, for that is what they are, don't interview, they "consult" with a Search Committee or "offer their views." If one can't be assured of absolute confidentiality, the Mandel Center Excellence assured all after the Washington embarrassment, they won't "participate in the process." They wrote: "As is standard practice, we will maintain the confidentiality and integrity of the process and will not publicly discuss details of potential candidates, nor will we address unsubstantiated rumors that could potentially harm people." One would expect exactly that.

So, the press reveals an offer was made for the D.C. top job and the Mandel search folks (who, it is rumored, may have excluded highly qualified, potential candidates from consideration in the process in order to protect others they favored), JFNA's consultants, responded by condemning this interference in the process. D.C.'s leaders issued a statement that the job had not been offered to anyone (of course not) and the one who received or didn't receive, the "offer" or "non-offer" received a promotion in his home federation.

~ More to the point, JFNA continues to be run as if its work is none of your business -- none of the business of so many of the federations that pay the annual and outrageous tab. JFNA is, after all a "public charity." The fiduciary obligations of its lay and professional leaders demand -- this is not optional -- that its work be totally transparent. Yet, these past two days, JFNA convened a small group of select leaders -- lay and professional -- to devise a set of strategies that might bring our system back to its collective responsibilities. I applaud the purpose...but the methodology, not so much. Excluded from this meeting were a super-majority of federations (perhaps they were "represented" by leaders of the City-size groups, perhaps not). The paper which framed the "debate" was not shared with anyone excluded from this two-day meeting -- perhaps JFNA leadership numbered the copies and confiscated them at meeting's end to assure "strict confidentiality." The only way many federation leaders learned of this "Summit" was from this Blog -- a wholly unsatisfactory method of communication. The only way we will know the results of this "Summit" will be through some sanitized "Leadership Briefing."

All of you who think this is how the people's business should be conducted -- raise your hands. No, not you Kathy -- we know how you feel.

And, my friends, this is exactly how the "people's business" is done. This is precisely one of the contributing factors to the destruction of trust so vital to federations' vitality. But, don't worry, the secrets are safe -- and, ultimately, that's the most important thing, isn't it?

Rwexler

INSIGHT...AND A CRITICAL MEETING

In response to our Post -- IT AIN'T OVER UNTIL THE FAT LADY SINGS...Paul wrote that she sang when the merger occurred. I disagreed -- but Used to be Important had some critical insights with which I do agree. Used to be...wrote:

"No, the problem is that there is no Vision. Just lots of badly facilitated UJC and then JFNA 'strategic planning' junk full of meaningless Vision statements. All done for and by an organization without a mandate to lead and devoid of the kind of true national leadership it would need to survive, let alone flourish. There was a vision in the days when UJA and CJF were strong. It endured and endured only to be broken apart by the "Study" demanded at the time (mid-nineties) by a bunch of tired and bored Large City Execs who thought they needed to "own" the system ... whatever that meant. The old Vision of UJA and CJF of collective responsibility was founded on the ridiculously simple concept of Kol Israel Zeh l'Zeh and that united North American, South African, Australian and European Jewry in a grand and common focus. That focus fell to the "importance of local needs"; to "Israel doesn't need us any more" and to all the other oversimplifications of the Study and its authors.

The great national leaders of UJA and CJF were divided. A couple abandoned the Mission and looked out for number one, desperate to attain high office in whatever new entity would emerge. Instead of broad, global thinking and action, the new 'leaders' engaged consultants; changed a name that had a huge franchise and created no foundational strengths for the emerging UJC. Its stature is diminished; its leaders are weak. The Federations campaigns are suffering in many cases and, it seems, the two greatest purveyors of good for Jews in Israel and overseas are treated as insignificant. It worked. The inmates have taken over the running of the asylum."

I agree with so much of what Used to be wrote. I have a sense of my personal mea culpa. At one and the same time the "inmates" have only "taken over the running" of JFNA because they have been permitted to do so by the neglect, disinterest and abandonment of responsibility and obligation by so many who could have (and still could) make a difference. The curative steps that need to be...must be...taken are self-evident. They actually begin tomorrow.

Tomorrow, you may ask? Yes. On the 23rd-24th, the Chair and CEO have invited a group of federation lay and professional leaders to 25 Broadway -- if you haven't been invited, you're not alone. (The participants are a secret known only to Manning and Silverman. I'm betting it's JFNA's secret Coordinating Council and some additional Federation CEOs...but not its Executive Committee -- very bizarre [but, perhaps, they can't be "trusted."]) The focus of this meeting is to be the development of consensus on matters related to the core allocations to our system's partners. Two months ago JFNA was charged with developing this consensus -- you know, by, like, uh, visiting with federation Chairs and CEOs. But, no, they called a meeting. No doubt there will a lot of talk of and commitment to a "Global Planning Table" that JFNA's leaders' assert, contrary to all evidence, was a consensus-driven outcome of a 2009 then UJC Board Retreat at which 1/3rd of the federations were participants (one from west of Missouri) and at which no vote was taken. This meeting will take place with JAFI and the Joint excluded. Hopefully those leaders in attendance who truly recognize how critical this consensus is to the federations as well as to the present and future of JFNA, will save JFNA from itself.

Again.

Rwexler

BUILDING THE NEW FEDERATION...NOT SO MUCH

One becomes numb reading of federation struggles, the lack of any intelligence at JFNA about these struggles and, worst, the lack of any intelligence in JFNA to help. (I will assume that JFNA is aware of the pressing problems but is so self-involved in White House briefings, Sheatufim, #ish and other pish, that it has no time.)

Let's look at just some of the crises:

~ Federation A found it necessary to fire 33 staff members last month. There was no outreach by JFNA even after it had sent its best professional campaigner to the community earlier in the year. From my visits there over the years, if JFNA had any lay solicitors, they could have been deployed for a week's worth of major gift suite solicitations. And, were the JFNA Planned Giving & Endowment Department more than the passive area that it has become (or always was), and even though the Federation A Community Foundation (one of the strongest and wealthiest) is within the Federation, further outreach for emergency funding of the community's highest priorities and greatest needs might have been a matter of discussion.

~ The Jewish Exponent reported that "[T]his year, volunteers and professionals described Jewish Federation B's allocation process as downright 'impossible'" as reported by your friendly Fundermentalist. No surprise given the bizarre ever-changing allocations processes dictated there by federation professionals who have lost their way --if they ever had a way. The unrestricted annual campaign in Federation B had dropped by 14% while it is claimed that the "total campaign" only dropped by 2%. (The Jewish populations of Chicago and Federation B are approximately the same. In the same year that Chicago raised $80 million of unrestricted funds through its Annual Campaign, Federation B raised a claimed $27.8 million -- how much of that total was undesignated is unknown.) These results are also an expression of the intra-campaign swing from a "traditional" annual campaign responding to the case for giving to a "designated giving campaign" where donors could contribute as they wish to one or more of a set of thematic giving opportunities, and the termination of key staff (including some who actually understood campaign). Then I read that this federation reelected a respected lay leader as Chair for a fourth term -- apparently repeated communal failure dictates repeated reelection.

I have watched as this federation -- one that once offered so many of its leaders to the national system -- UJA, CJF, UIA, JAFI, the NCSJ, you name it; whose professional leaders over decades were a source of incredible leadership in our national system -- now is in serious disintegration. What does it do? "Refocuses its mission...on fund raising and community priortities." Makes one kinda wonder where its focus has been. Guidance from JFNA? Nah. Results surprising? Hah. There are fantastic leaders in Federation B. Are they being a chance to lead?

In Federation C a community of great potential, the federation raises minmimal funds and flails away. A new CEO is named after a flawed and failed search (which as I recall she led); a past Chair announces that the federation concept is no longer valid -- and publishes it; an annual campaign bottoms out while its JCC drains the community of its resources. Where is JFNA in all of this? Well, it did cancel the GA there and just held one of its Regional Campaign Kick-offs there.

___________________________________________________________________


In one comic episode, JFNA transmitted its "How to be a Federation CEO" manual to a federation CEO six months after that CEO took office. Big help. In another, JFNA assigned a mentor for a new Large City CEO. Weeks (or months) later another federation chief professional inquired of a new President: "Who is your mentor?" "You are," was the reply. The point: each federation professional leader is on his or her own. But for the conference calls and infrequent meetings of City-size groupings of federation chief pros, often organized by the CEOs themselves with a JFNA professional in attendance, these professionals are forced to fend for themselves without guidance or assistance. A role for JFNA -- sure. One JFNA is fulfilling in any way? Hardly.

But...among the 57 pages of JFNA Programs in the Budget Book for 2011, there was enough money, a lot of money in fact, to support the training and education of sitting Federation CEOs. There was also plenty for so many other things irrelevant to the federations but apparently extremely important to JFNA. How these dollars will be spent is a continuing mystery. Maybe the JFNA Chair and Budget Chair will involves themselves -- surprise us.

There appears to be a growing "movement" to build the "new federation" without regard to the basic values that must underpin the community instrumentality. In this writer's opinion, to "build" or "rebuild" without regard to the core values and principles and without understanding the history of the federation movement, will doom the enterprise to failure. That's already happening in too many places. And that is both sad and unnecessary. If those at JFNA understood the values and principles that are the foundation stones of the federation movement, they could help. Or, perhaps not.

Rwexler

I'LL HAVE WHAT THEY'RE SMOKING, PLEASE

Look, at heart I am, like so many of you, a fund raiser -- with all modesty, a damned good one. And, as any good fund raiser knows, you have to be an optimist. I am afraid, however, that our friends at JFNA have taken optimism to a height I can't even approach.

Almost back-to-back two organizations offered environmental analyses that were polar opposites from one another suggesting that one is just totally out of touch with reality -- you guess which.

On August 16, GuideStar USA, the self-styled "...leading source of nonprofit information..." released an all-encompassing economic survey of public charities that revealed, among other things, "...there's no doubt that the nonprofit sector continues to face an incredibly difficult philanthropic environment." The GuideStar report was titled Great Recession Continues to Hurt Nonprofit Sector. This is what Newsweek characterized this week as "the wrath of the relentless present." But to JFNA, even the present is past.

The very next day, on August 17, JFNA issued an important Leadership Briefing -- its title: JFNA RELEASES FIRST POST-RECESSION FEDERATION BENCHMARKING RESULTS. (Emphasis added.)The logical conclusion -- only JFNA and the Obama Administration believe that we are in a "Post-Recession" period. JFNA is busy "...suggesting strategies for growth" and framing its strategies based on the emergence of our philanthropy from "...the 2008-2009 recession"(!!) at a time when most federations I have visited or heard from are in the midst of a continuing struggle to maintain even to survive in the midst of reduced campaigns and falling endowments.

If I were a federation, no matter the City-size, CEO or Chair reading these two studies side-by-side, I would question not just the credibility of an organization of and for the federations which believes its owners are in the "post recession" era but that organization's value to a system in crisis. Is JFNA living in some alternative universe? Have they handed studies like this one over to consultants who consider raw data without any direct knowledge of the realities federations across this continent are facing?

Yes, I recall the days, not so long ago, when federations insisted that then UJC not even use the "R word" as if that avoidance would postpone the impacts of the recessionary flood upon our system's donors, large and small. That was a denial of reality that has now been matched or exceeded by the very suggestion that we, as a system, have emerged from the recession while every other philanthropy and our donors continue to suffer.

If only wishing made it so.

Rwexler

THE BAD OLD DAYS DON'T LOOK SO BAD

In my last CATCHING UP Post I reflected on the agenda of the Young Leadership Cabinet Retreats wistfully. The fund raising results raise some real questions about the YLC in 2011 and beyond reflecting, as always, on the direction (or, more likely, the lack thereof) of JFNA's Development effort.

Along with so many of you, including the JFNA Board Chair, I served on the Cabinet. I did so at a time that Cabinet membership meant something -- it was "elitist" in the sense of our financial commitments and it demanded capacity giving. The Retreats were intense and emotional. The caucuses were both of those as well -- small rooms, full disclosure, intense...and you didn't leave the small caucus setting until you had satisfied the 4 or five others in the room that your pledge commitment satisfied the others in the room that your gift represented your capacity...and beyond. There was ruach, common purpose, a shared vision and passion. We were propelled from these Retreats into federation leadership if we wanted it.

This year, over 90 men contributed an average of $9,850; over 80 women, an average of $8,500. This is not a reflection on these young leaders or their capacities; it is a reflection of the criteria now being used for YLC membership. And, certainly, many of these young men and women will grow their annual gifts. That's not the point -- the Cabinet was supposed to be a place for those who are already demonstrating leadership and to grow them. I know that in some communities it is not uncommon to find local Campaign Chairs who contribute at these levels -- but I can tell you that those federations' campaigns are in trouble. And when the Cabinet, which graduated so many to Federation and national leadership roles, is populated by those whose capacity is reflected in a gift of less than $10,000 (and these 2011 gifts represented increases in excess of 25%!!), we have the strongest evidence of our institutional weakness.

Our friend Paul Jeser wrote:

"richard - of everything you have written, this 'update' about the YLC is the most depressing - and saddening.

Back in 'the day', us small/intermediate city Fed Execs looked to the YLCs as a most important part of the system. It was the glue that tied us all together.

The YLCs were the breeding ground for future leadership - especially from the smaller Feds who did not have the same leadership/donor strength the larger Feds had.

That the Feds 'allowed' this to happen, it seems to me, is more proof that the Fed system, as we knew it to be, just is no longer viable."


What did Michael Lebovitz, Linda Hurwitz and Jerry Silverman tell these leaders at their Retreat: "you inspire us?" "I am reenergized by being here with you." "It's your century; thanks for sharing it with us." All of the above"? It used to be true. Not any more.

One of our correspondents has described his/her pain that this lay leadership and their predecessors "...have taken something beautiful and desecrated it." Nowhere is that more tragic and more true than what has happened to the Young Leadership Cabinets. This constituency was the gem, the diamonds...turned into zircons. Did this occur by neglect? Through a lack of attention? Through a failed competence?

Perhaps I now better understand why a "highlight" on the YLC Program this year was a "Casino Night." The Cabinets were entrusted by us to this leadership; by failing them, they have failed us. We have lost our way. Oy vey.

Rwexler

"IT AIN'T OVER..." REVISITED

In discussions over the last week, I have learned JFNA's perspective on the my Post which, framed as a letter to the Board Chair, stated that she had acted unilaterally in rejecting two "split" agreements reached by the Jewish Agency and the Joint:



~ Nothing was done unilaterally. The JFNA perspective: in both 2008 and 2009, the now Board Chair consulted with some form of "leadership Committee" (which included at least two Large City CEOs)and with leaders of the City-size federation groups before responding to the "partners."



~ After consulting these "leadership Committees," at least in 2009, she rewrote the JAFI/JDC Agreement in part in an effort to "help" the partners reach an agreement that would be "acceptable" to the federations.



~ At no time, either in 2008 or 2009, were JAFI and/or JDC consulted by the now Board Chair or anyone else from UJC/JFNA with regard to any issues in the agreements they had reached through their negotiations before they were advised, in 2008, that their agreement had been rejected by a "leadership Committee" or, in 2009, they received a revised agreement not marked to show the changes made.



I hope this clarifies the record.



I have written over 500 Posts since January 1, 2009. It is true that I have raised issues as to UJC's and JFNA's leadership skills and JFNA's lack of focus or follow-up and understanding of the system they were chosen to lead, among other matters of substance. But, at no time, have I questioned their commitment, as volunteers or professionals, or ridiculed them for their appearance or intellect. I am a firm believer in "people in glass houses..." Anyone who suggests that I have can only be doing so merely to divert attention from the substance of what I (and those who have offered Comments) have written.



Finally, apparently no one at JFNA reads this Blog. Posts are sometimes sent to them Yet, the Blog (and, of course, I) often infuriates them. Perhaps, they should consider reading it more often -- including the Comments. It couldn't hurt.



Rwexler

KASHRUT STORIES

After reading my Post subsection on the YLC, one of the FOB (Friends of the Blog) wrote of an "institutional Kashrut experience:"

"Good morning. Thanks for the laughs and for reminding of a true story as I was there. (We) had (a) conference in Tucson (not Phoenix but essentially the same part of the world) and they knew that the meals had to either be kosher or acceptable to several of us who keep kosher. Our lunch meal of that particular day was fish with a cheese melted over it. The taste was awful and then we understood the type of fish and how it was prepared. The restaurant manager told us the fish was “gefilte” and the sauce on top was Parmesan – Yes, the chef had prepared gefilte fish Parmesan." (Some changes to protect the source.)

This, in turn, reminded me of a family experience, somewhat different. My wife's family holds a beautiful Pesach seder each year. The family had grown so much that the seder had to be moved to a hotel in Chicago's northwest suburbs. The Hagadah reading ended and the waitstaff began to serve. To begin, ten waiters literally paraded into the banquet room each balancing a large tray covered with a silver cloche. On cue they raised the covers and there they were: ten large challahs.

More stories out there?

Rwexler