Sunday, December 2, 2018

SEND IN THE CLOWNS -- A COMMENTARY ON UIA-JFNA

                                    SEND IN THE CLOWNS*

                                                       
                                             But where are the clowns?

                                     Send in the clowns

                                 Don’t bother, they’re here”

We all have heard the haunting lyrics of Stephen Sondheim’s beautiful dirge. Sad to say, they are too appropriate in light of JFNA’s determination to effectively defenestrate its subsidiary, the United Israel Appeal, for no reason other than it exists. It’s also entirely possible that this decision, reflected in what can only be described as a “made as instructed” Report, now circulating in Draft Form to Federation leaders in the uNited States, may be modified in a positive manner. After all, miracles do happen

A very brief history is in order. The merger which resulted in what is now JFNA was the outcome of votes by the United Israel Appeal and the Joint Distribution Committee, the owners of the United Jewish Appeal and by the Jewish Federations, the owners of the Council of Jewish Federations. In that referendum, the UIA leadership acquiesced in surrendering the organization’s independence in what’s argued to be the “best interests of the system,” becoming instead a subsidiary of JFNA. UIA’s Board, led by the incredible leader, Shoshana Cardin, z’l, and her chief professional, Danny Allen, fought so hard because they saw, as I, who led these merger discussions, did not, that the consolidation would ultimately fail the overseas partners and, specifically, the Jewish Agency, the agent of our system, reporting to UIA, the principal on our behalf. They were proved sadly prescient.

UIA leaders premised their joinder in the merger on Federations assuming “…the responsibility of making sure (JAFI and JDC) would continue to receive significant allocations.” In fact, the merger was designed to “create more dollars and more donors.” JFNA/the Federations have totally failed to meet any of these obligations. Curiously, the authors of the JFNA Report did not consult with any of the women and men who led the UIA merger negotiations to ascertain the facts.

Over the past 20 years, UIA has performed its assigned roles with excellence. In fact, it can be concluded that, other than JFNA’s Washington Office, it is the only area of Federations’ work through JFNA that has been consistently performed at the highest level. UIA secured and has administered a multi-million dollar U.S. Refugee Grant — its work with that Grant has received accolades from the U..S. Department of State; it has authorized allocations to the Jewish Agency after review and UIA has carefully engaged in the operation and disposition of properties which it owns and/or operates, maximizing values. UIA (now JJFNA-UIA) appointees to the Jewish Agency Board of Governors have been women and men, Federation leaders all, vetted by and with JFNA.

In November 2013,  JFNA’s Board approved a Report of the UIA Futures Committee “Report and Recommendations for UIA Mandate.” The Futures Committee, chaired by the Washington Federation leader,Norman Goldstein ,and Nashville’s Fred Zimmerman, restated UIA’s historic roles for the system and set forth a series of “UIA Value Added Services” and “Structural Enhancements.” All of these were approved by the JFNA Board. (For future reference, please note: Harold Gernsbacher, the Chair of the current JFNA Task Forces — strangely, both of them — served on the UIA Futures Committee.)

So, ignoring the historical certainty as expressed in the mantra: “if ain’t broke, don’t ‘fix’ it,” JFNA organized two — not one…two — Global Operations Review Committees which, if one reads the Draft Recommendations, concluded that though “it ain’t broke,” we’ll “break” UIA. And these Draft Recommendations emerge as UIA embarked on an ambitious and creative advocacy program to attract new federation lay leaders to the cause of overseas  needs. As one terrific UIA leader lamented to me:

“in an environment where we are so desperately testing to attract and engage lay leaders why they see us a threat or in competition is just not understandable. JFNA should be encouraging and supporting our efforts where there is such demand and added value.”

The set of Draft Recommendations for delimiting UIA is preceded by a specious and misleading rendition of “history’ embodied in a report titled JEWISH FEDERATIONS’ GLOBAL ROLE TODAY AND TOMORROW, authored by the JFNA Global Operations Review Committee has been published and widely distributed. If implemented, UIA would be, as its immediate past Executive Vice-Chair, Danny Allen, described it, “eviscerated;” its Board would be reduced to 7 (from 32 Federation leaders today, all of whose appointments were vetted through JFNA), and its roles relegated to certifying the tax deductibility of Federation/donor allocations and other oversight functions along with U.S. Resettlement Grant. 

And, the purported bases, the rationale, for this deconstruction of UIA?  Here is some of it:

1. “Complete the integration of UIA functions (into JFNA) as was historically intended.” This red herring defies scrutiny. The “historical intent” of the merger vis-a-vis UIA was expressed in the merger and has been fully accomplished. Period. Full stop. 

2. Eliminate 25 federation leaders from the UIA Board, reducing it to 7. It appears this would be done because by reducing and restricting UIA functions and services, what is there left for the Board to do? Inasmuch as this Draft Report was staff-driven in its totality, it reflects the JFNA professionals’ disrespect for the significant lay involvement embodied in UIA’s lay leaders’ service to their own communities and JAFI.

3. JFNA’s Nominating Committee would supplant UIA’s own historic processes and ignores the fact that UIA leaders clear these name with JFNA in advance.

4. UIA’s advocacy for overseas allocations (and, specifically, federation allocations to JAFI),  approved by the JFNA Board in November 2013, would be formally eliminated  even though, after 18 community visits in its first year, UIA agreed to curtail that advocacy subsuming that effort for  JFNA’s “Ambassadors” advocacy — sending lay leaders into federations under the JFNA-Israel and Overseas Committee— which has failed from the outset.

There’s more — fully integrating UIA’s vetting and processing allocations into JFNA’s Finance Department, and, without reflection on the potential impact on the very Revenue Rulings  even JFNA rallies it must support, “systematically reduce UIA’s role in ownership and management of IEF properties” — but the unstated purpose of the Draft GlobalOperations Review Committee Recommendations is to “reduce UIA costs to JFNA” (even though UIA’s cost to JFNA’s Budget is $1,250,000 — 1/2 of UIA’s budget, the other 1/2 being credited against the JAFI allocation) and, remarkably, given its continued failures, to enhance and ratify the work of JFNA-Israel, as if that silo had any capacity to accomplish even a delimited set of purposes let alone an expanded one.

Washington Federation and UIA leader, Norm Goldstein, registered his concern with the Draft in his typical incisive manner:

“As the co-author of the UIA Futures Report, I read the Gernsbacher report with great care.  Since I have great respect for many of the persons who are signatories to the report and engaged members of UIA, with  strong backgrounds in JFNA, I am somewhat reluctant to criticize it.  However, stated simply, I do not see how this report answers the very serious problems facing JFNA in addressing the challenges of  carrying out its role with respect to the Israel and Overseas agenda.”

“Specifically, while the report states it was initiated as part of the zero based budgeting process, I see no fiscal analysis whatsoever.  I see well phrased verbiage giving a depressing history which demonstrates a striking decline in the resources provided through the system to our historic partners, and discussion about reasons for the possible decline based on changing attitudes of local Federations.”

“I see no clear strategic plan for addressing the identified issues, other than general statements about developing new relationships with Israeli NGOs, and enhancement of JFNA's  control in other areas.
I see nothing which reflects any serious consultation with our overseas partners, especially with the Jewish Agency which is the clear underlying focus of the paper.”

“The only concrete recommendation I see are reiterations of efforts to be undertaken by JFNA, where they have not have not succeeded in the past, and/or have not demonstrated the value of their current efforts on a cost effectiveness basis.”

“Basically, all that I see is the obviously predetermined result oriented goal of eviscerating the UIA, the one entity which retains lay leadership in active capacities to act on behalf of the Jewish Agency, and by implication the Overseas Agenda. “

“That will not answer the more serious questions facing the JFNA.”

Insiders have told me that JAFI leaders were promised an opportunity to discuss the Global Operations relationship with the Review Committees before the framing of Draft Recommendations; a promise unfulfilled even as the Draft Recommendations would significantly impact on the Jewish Agency and JDC. Perhaps, the fact that JAFI’s current and immediate past Budget and Finance Chairs and JAFI Board members served on the Review Committee was thought by the JFNA draftspersons to be sufficient. It wasn’t.

Suffice it to say: the JFNA Global Operations Review Committee wholly failed to offer a valid, comprehensive or comprehensible rationale for its Recommendations to place UIA in an even more reduced role than contemplated by the merger other than the obvious goal of accreting to JFNA itself, our organization that has failed both in the absolute and relative to UIA itself.

Somehow, those who support these changes believe that American communal support of the Jewish Agency/Israel will be enhanced by pushing those lay leaders who have enthusiastically and passionately advocated for Israel/JAFI to the sidelines if not completely from the stadium.  All the interest of unquantified “cost savings.”

What UIA accomplishes, year-in and year-out, with dedicated lay leaders and an incredible small group of professionals in Israel puts the rest of JFNA-Israel to shame — a well-earned shame. For JFNA to be focused on UIA at this point in its history is, as a matter of principle and practice, so very wrong; an unnecessary distraction at a time that calls for transformational change.


It would be time to Send in the Clowns….but they’re already there.

Rwexler

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Every word here is so true that it is disgusting that those responsible (the lay members of this "review" process, not the staff that evidently led them down this distorted path) allowed themselves to be used for such sinister manipulations.
Kill UIA because we can and because we don't like active lay leadership meddling with our "professional" business.
Kill UIA because we don't like the Jewish Agency (or JDC or World ORT either) and prefer having our own "Global Operations" (I&O Israel Office) set up its own programs and promote its own "niche philanthropy" which is controlled by and beholden to us and only us.
In short, this is an attempt to get activist leadership out of the way and to establish full CONTROL over a new JFNA agenda, to get UIA out of the way and allow "Global Operations" to continue to self inflate with no management, no supervision and no results.
Zero based budgeting indeed - more like zero based ideology and zero based strategy.
UIA is not what is broken. JFNA is broken and this is not the way to fix it.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it time for lay leadership to retake control of our organizations from the professionals who no longer respect or value true lay leadership nor understand the value of the joint leadership model that once made our system great?

Anonymous said...

As a long time federation leader and a person who has attended numerous GA's where I have had a chance to interact with other lay leaders, a common thread that runs thru discussions I have had is that many individual federations can also be viewed as sending in the clowns. In efforts to bring in new young leadership too rapidly with little or no historical perspective (and often accompanied by new professional leadership with little or no historical perspective) these federations are facing a serious decline in campaign in real dollars as well as when comparing the value of the dollar today to the value 10-15 years ago as more established donors don't want to have anything to do with the new direction, or to surrender their support for traditional agencies in the local community and the overseas partners. While this is happening the new young leadership do not have the financial resources to replace the lost revenue. I believe this is a strong contributing factor to the explosion in donor advised funds, endowments, supporting foundations and other ways that have the effect of taking the decision making out of the hands of the clowns. The end result, I believe, is a contributing factor in the rapid decline in campaign dollars and donors to federations. Perhaps the next song ought to be a parody of the Peter Paul and Mary Song - Where Have All the Donors Gone"?

Anonymous said...

And where is Mark Wilf on this issue?

Anonymous said...

Time is running out and it appears that the clowns that are leading this circus intend to go all the way this time.
They will succeed unless we (yes, you too!) fight back strongly enough to force them to back off. The big question is therefore whether we care enough to stand up and stop them from adopting this misleading and misguided report. If we have the will, we will find the way.
It would have been better if this report had never been written, or at least had never seen the light of day, but now it must be thrown out and forgotten.
Hopefully, a more serious effort by leadership that know the history and understand the facts can be created to replace it and come up with some suggestions that are better aligned with reality of both what is and what should be.
This is probably the last chance we will have to prevent irreversible mistakes from being made.

Anonymous said...

As I asked earlier: Where is Mark Wilf on this issue?
His background in the organization would suggest that he knows the history and the implications.
This will define his legacy.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Mark Wilf will be smart enough to realize that the Silverman/Gurvis doctrine of marginilizing lay involvement ("interference") is the exact opposite of what is needed. Perhaps he, unlike Sandler, will realize that his job is to lead the professionals that work for him and understand that active lay leadership is the most important resource that we have.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone other than the JFNA "pros" really believe that if we get rid of 25 UIA lay leaders and "integrate" all of UIA's functions into the JFNA bureaucracy that we will make JFNA more relevant and more effective?
Killing UIA will not heal JFNA. It will only destroy one of the few remaining positive components that are left of our already "merged to death" organization.

Anonymous said...

To anon at 3:19 - If you think Wilf will change ANYTHING meaningful, I have multiple bridges for sale. I'll even make you a special price!!