AND, THEN, THERE'S JDC

As I was finishing a Post on JAFI wandering in the desert of No Relevant Purpose, soon to be published here, I read Debra Nussbaum Cohen's brilliant Jewish Insider article exposing the turmoil at the Joint -- The chaos disrupting the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee. Read the entire article at https://jewishinsider.com/2019/11/the-chaos-disrupting-the-american-jewish-joint-distribution-committee/

Sadly, another organization suffering from, among other things, a terrible senior professional leadership choice --  who, after being awarded compensation egregious by any standard now claims to have to return to the law school from which he came to preserve his "tenure;" declining federation allocations to the JDC core budgets; a drastic reduction in Claims Conference income; and a too shaqrp focus on creating endowments at the expense of current fund-raising.

One can only wish Stan Raben, a great lay leader, every success with his leadership in righting the JDC ship. The Joint is too important.

Kal ha'kavod to Debra on this great reporting.

Rwexler

PET PEEVE

I assume, because I have so many, that most of us have multiple pet peeves -- e.g., people who keep their cellphones on at Theatre or movies, those seatmates who take their shoes off when the plane takes off (for the rest of the flight), you know, stuff like that.

One of mine -- and I don't really understand why these things bother me -- those professionals who don't practice law but insist on:

~ putting "Esq." after their signature line on their business cards/stationary; and

~ more recently, adding their law degrees -- as in "Richard Wexler, J.D." or, as I just read another, "B.A., LLB" after his/her name

Look, I don't mind if those who have received Doctoral Degrees like to be introduced as "Dr." even if the doctorate is in, e.g., English Literature -- they worked for years in almost all instances to gain that degree. It should be noted that one of my favorite humorists and reporters, Tony Kornheiser, having received an Honorary Doctorate from his alma mater, SUNY Binghamton, periodically wears a doctors smock on his Pardon the Interruption show on ESPN. (And I won't even comment on his frequent donning of a Turban and/or a smock or dress -- unrelated to that Doctorate.)

But "Dr." is different from J.D. or BA or LL.B  -- different in degree of difficulty at the least. I received my J.D. in 1965 and never deployed it as part of my "title." Would my 4+ decade career have been different? Better? And, never did "Esq." appear below my signature after my name. 

I guess if one is practicing law folks with whom one is dealing know you're an "Esq." and that you either have an LL.B or J.D. without the need for further notice. But, someone please explain to me why if you are running a metals business and have a law degree or you're a Jewish community professional you would have the need to let everyone know that you also have a law degree.

If this is a trend, some will now be adding those undergraduate degrees, number of children, years at the job. My suggestion, store it all on LinkedIn. You will be found.

I know this is just my rant, but, if you have an explanation of "why," let me know.

Please.

Rwexler
.

YOUR COMMENTS...AN APPRECIATION

I receive your Comments with great appreciation for most of them. Reluctantly, I do understand the reasons most (close to all) of you wrap your Comments in a cloak of Anonymity.

Here are a few examples of your insights:

To my Post on Some Things Never Change -- a reflection on the futility of the JFNA "programs' in the Negev:

" An empire cannot thrive without funds and since JFNA doesn't do campaigns any more, the only way for the power hungry to continue to grow their empire is evidently to take donor funds that were raised for emergency relief and "reallocate" them for dedicated staff and programming that they can control.

Since our JFNA Global Operations "Agency" doesn't have the experience or the expertise that JDC/JAFI/ORT do, the "reallocated" funds are used to add more staff to the "team" and to throw money at local politicians so that they will always have great things to say about our wonderful Israel Office and it's wonderful leader. 

As usual at JFNA, lay committees are charged with the approval of use of these funds and blindly follow staff reccomendations, even though the staff in question are guided by an ideology of "make us look good" rather than "meet the needs" or even really attempting to fulfill the purpose on the basis of which the funds were raised in the first place.

Eric and Mark Wilf will certainly discover this abuse (along with many others) if they just bother to really have a look at what has been going on for the past decade at the "JFNA Agency for Israel." It is about time that someone bothered to have a look.  

Will they?"

To the Post Worse and Worse a request for rethinking: 

Have you given any thopught to the proposition that JAFI no longer merits even the projected $74 million allocated to it in 2019? What Jewish Agency programs (beyond the basic blocking and tackling of drastically diminished Aliya and Klitah) are worthy of even the funding that JAFI will receive from the Federations at the end of this year -- "Jewish unity?" "The only venue where the great issues confronting the Jewish People are debated?" "Fighting global anti-semitism?" I would respectfully suggest that the Agency deserves less, not more. Then, again, that's true of JFNA as well. 

THE GLICK "CRACKUP"

Caroline Glick, right-wing Israeli columnist and, recently, defeated candidate for the Knesset, returned to her role as pundit after that dip in the waters of Israeli politics. Her op-eds are totally supportive of Donald Trump and constantly mine the depths of her hatred for  anything to her left and, in particular, American Jews who fail to share her views.

Most recently Glick published Trump, Israel and the Democratic Crackup in JNS:  https//www.jns.org/opinion/trump-israel-and-the-democratic-crackup. I recommend reading that screed only because it exemplifies Ms. Glick's habit of building her arguments on false pretenses. 

Any analysis of this screed must start, as Ms. Glick did, with her false premise -- that way back in 2000 "...the Democrats refused to accept the election results in Florida that gave George W, Bush his victory..." Without a scintilla of evidence, without a single fact, the author concludes that that 2000 election marked the beginning of what she describes as the "radicalization" of the Democratic Party.

Building on this misstatement, Glick jumps directly to 2016 concluding that as the Democrats refused to accept the 2000 election results, so they have attempted to overturn the results of Trump's election and, as in the current GOP "talking points," the purpose of  today's impeachment inquiry "...is to nullify Trump's presidency by, among other things, deligitimizing and dehumanizing Trump, his family, associates and supporters." Not a fact is placed in evidence.

These misstatements continue for pages. Read them for yourself. Perhaps Ms. Glick was using this column is more than a fact-free version of purported "truth;" maybe it was intended as a job application for Fox News. Maybe an Israeli version of Jeanine Pirro or Katrina Pierson. 

Wishing her every success.

Rwexler

HUH?

So much that makes one scratch your head. For example...

~ A Friend of the Blog sent me this one: "Did you know that there are 8.5 million cats in Israel -- that's almost one cat for every person! If you're a fan of felines, show your love by sharing your favorite cat photo here. #National Cat Day #Meow."

And, just where did this inanity appear? You probably guessed it: It was a JFNA Facebook Post. There are no words. 

~  I am certain that some of you share what I would describe as my own anger with regard to Bernie Sanders speech to the J Street Conference. The condemnation of Israel from someone who has used the fact of his birth, that being born Jewish, to cloak himself with the right to unconditionally condemn the Jewish State without consequences and, perhaps, some sort of political advantage. Actually, Sanders' outburst at J Street fell in the category of "who can condemn Israel the most?"

While I often find myself in disagreement with Jonathan Tobin's editorial in JNS; I absolutely agree with him that Sanders' diatribe was worthy of only one thing -- scorn.  https://www.jns.org/opinion/bernies-gaza-aid-farce-exposes-j-streets-false-front/

 No one should be surprised that Sanders has shown his colors...again...in this most anti-Israel way. Nor should anyone be surprised that Bernie's attacks on Israel as "racist," on American military and foreign aid to Israel, and on the Israeli Prime Minister drew huge ovations from the J Street crowd -- it was, after all, the J Street crowd.

Rabbi Amiel Hirsch said it best: “The Democratic Party is increasingly tolerant of voices that are opposed to Israel’s existence.”

~ As we are reminded from time-to-time, JFNA's ersatz GA, this time titled FedLab will soon convene "by Invitation only." While the Lab appears to be dedicated to in-depth exploration of Total Financial Resource Development and "Powering Your Philanthropic Networks," it is hard to see the inherent return on investment from this Lab inasmuch as the the scholars and presenters remain unknown as I write this -- it appears that this is one of those "trust us" things. So I'm guessing that the presenters and speakers -- consultants in the main -- will be the same as those who appear at all JFNA FRD things. 

BTW, JFNA continues to promote the Lab as "by invitation only," and that may be true even as the organization appears to have invited anyone and every one. 

So, won't see you in D.C. but I'm anxious to learn the outcomes from this 3-day event...if any.

Rwexler

SOME THINGS NEVER CHANGE

I hope that JFNA CEO Eric Fingerhut will take a careful look at JFNA -- Israel and Overseas or JFNA -- Global Operations or whatever the hell that black hole is called at the moment. Ineptitude and hyperbole just slap you in the face like wet towels every time you look at the thing. I.m relatively confident that Eric will be able stop the bleeding from this Jerusalem hideaway if he chooses to do so.

And what has caused this outburst this time? In time for the October JFNA Board Meeting, the Desk of Rebecca Caspi produced what is now the monthly I&O Top Five (for October [on the 24th thereof]). And, there, as the number one thing (for October) something called #FedProud in the Negev. 


Here's the thing. JFNA's work in the Negev has been both minimal and fine. The problem: JFNA raised little or no money to support its work in the Negev; yet, the JFNA Negev Now Initiative had $2.5 million to spend -- how does that happen? Just as the organization funded its most recent education initiative with funds effectively stolen from the national agencies, the funding for its Negev activities were taken directly from the 2014 Operation Protective Edge campaign receipts ignoring the fact that those funds were raised to directly benefit the Victims of the Terrorists' War. 


And, now, just weeks ago, JFNA announced:

"Federation's Negev Now Initiative concludes after five years of building and supporting a more vital and attractive Negev."

Really, "concludes?" The needs have been met? Or is this just the reality that the Victims' Fund, raided for Negev Now, has been exhausted and JFNA hasn't the ability to raise any money at all? In the past months I have become engaged in the JNF-USA's vital work in the Negev, committing tens of millions of dollars in the most vital work in the Gaza Envelope, in Aleh Negev, in community building and People building. The leaders of JNF are fully aware that its work in the Negev, so vital to Israel's future and present is not over -- it's just begun. 

Only for JFNA is it "over."

I really don't get it. The JFNA Negev Now Committee is/was populated with a group of terrific lay leaders. The federation professionals are/were first rate. And JFNA-Israel provided four professionals and a consultant. Over the few years of its existence Negev Now engaged in something called "placemaking" --

"Placemaking is a multi-faceted approach to the planning, design and management of public spaces...that promote residents' health, happoiness and well-being."

Got it? "Public placemaking." One has to wonder if these programs were desigigned to satisfy local leadership or to truly aid the victims of "Stop the Sirens?"

The apparently final...as in forever...Report on Negev Now wraps the work in a kind of verisimilitude -- and that's a good thing, like qa bandage on a gaping wound is a good thing.

JFNA has declared victory and moved on. "FedProud??"

Rwexler

SHOULD IT MATTER?

Friends, every so often I become obsessed with how the "system" selects its lay leaders -- obsessed with the question: should national or international organizations restrict their key lay leadership to those women and men who come from communities which have demonstrated over time their significant financial support of the appointing organizations?  

This is not a new question for me; it's one I've grappled with literally for decades. I don't if it was the first time, but I do remember a call I received from a terrific leader who told me: "Richard, I think you'll be happy to learn that I was just appointed the Chair of Federation Advocacy by UIA." Now, this lay leader is and was one of the most articulate leaders that I have known; a brilliant marketer. I responded: "You know, you would be fantastic except you come from a community that has been cutting its allocation to UIA for the Jewish Agency by huge percentages -- if you came to my community, you would not be considered the best spokesperson." This wasn't the last time I was asked a similar question by brilliant and generous leaders from communities whose allocations to the organizations these leaders had been asked to lead were horrifically low.

Is it appropriate, for example, that a wonderful philanthropist be denied an important leadership role in JAFI or the JDC because the community (in which they also played key roles, often the highest lay positions) are allocating less than 10% to JAFI or JDC? Or. would these national or international organizations be ill-served when represented by folks, their personal philanthropy notwithstanding, whose communities are not true financial partners in the work of the organizations these people would lead?

My point? If Leader A cannot inspire her/his own community to allocate what all of us would call a partnership commitment to, let's say the Jewish Agency, how will Leader A inspire anyone else to do what is right? I think we could all intuit the answer to that narrow question. But, we would not all reach a similar conclusion to the the question of whether generous leaders should be disqualified from leadership positions because they come from underperforming communities?

And, how do I know we would not all agree on an answer? I look around and discover that many national and international organizations' key leadership positions are filled without regard for their communities' organizational support. Some of us are blessed to come from the Chicago's, Cleveland's, Baltimore's and MetroWest's and more; others, not so much. 

As in so much in organized Jewish life, I wish there were easy answers to even the easiest questions.

There aren't.

Rwexler

WORSE AND WORSE

The JFNA annual Federation overseas cash allocations report has become an annual report of failure -- failure begetting failure. And, like clockwork, the JFNA projection for 2019 cash is the worst...ever.

For 2019, the sad, sad totals are projected as follows:

          JAFI -- $74.3

           JDC -- $30.0

           ORT -- $ 2.1

Friends, these are not misprints -- these totals are the lowest...ever. Reflect on this: if the aggregate federation annual campaigns are at $983 million (+/-) these allocations have fallen to a little over 11%. These percentages and the actual dollars are an insult to these agencies which are our agents and which we really no longer adequately sup[port.

The system, if there still is one, is guilty of criminal neglect. Over the last two years alone, the allocations to JAFI have fallen by close to $15,000,000 -- a percentage drop of 17% -- while JDC's total over the same period -- mirabile dictu -- was flat (and actually increased minimally in 2019 from 2018).

You may recall that, rather than accepting its responsibilities for advocacy on behalf of JAFI/JDC/ORT, JFNA's Board voted, as part of its "reorganization" of UIA, to abjure -- to walk away -- from its sacred obligation for advocacy for the core budgets of the overseas partners, resolving to "let JAFI and JDC advocate for themselves." "Not our problem" has morphed from "never our problem." JFNA fled from its advocacy obligations like rainwater rushung toward a sewer.

Failure is truly an orphan. This is nothing new. Recognizing that JFNA was unwilling to engage in serious advocacy dating back to 2004 (if not earlier), when I was serving as the Chair of the Jewish Agency North America, I met with JDC's lay and professional leaders to propose a serious partnership for overseas advocacy. The Joint's leaders -- terrific women and men totally committed to JDC -- and I had serious conversations that ended with JDC determining that it would continue to hold JFNA responsible for advocacy. As they said in Pretty Woman -- mistake; bad mistake, really big mistake.

I remember well the hope that leadership had at the time of the merger two decades ago -- one of the bedrock assumptions in the merger book was that the emerging organization, now JFNA, would result in more dollars for the core budgets of the overseas partners. An entire evaluation process was designed for determining the priorities...and to support them. And, then, there was nothing./////

Rwexler

IS THIS PROGRESS?

I can't tell you how many times I have visited Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry -- for a decade we lived in Hyde Park just blocks from the Museum and were there so often with our children; then later in life, our grandchildren. I remember as a teenager being there when the U-505 German submarine was floated across Lake Michigan, then across South Shore Drive to become a permanent exhibit. And, while in law school, I worked mornings for an urban planning firm whose offices were in the bowels of the Museum. 

Bottom line, I love the Museum as does anyone who has ever visited there. I assume that includes a large number of you.

So, I was struck by a Chicago Tribune article Museum of Science and Industry to get new name...It seems that Kenneth Griffin, co-founder of the amazingly successful hedge-fund Citadel, and one of the great philanthropists, whose Charitable Fund had already distributed over $1 billion to charities, had pledged $125 million to the Museum which change its name to the Kenneth C. Griffin Museum of Science and Industry.

One correspondent to Crain's Chicago Business put it succinctly:

"Leave museum's name alone Kudos to Ken Griffin for donating so generously to such a worthy and important institution...But the name change is just wrong. Name a wing after him. Heck, put a bug statue of him out front, but the museum name should be unchanged.

If Julius Rosenwald -- whose name should be plastered all over this city for the great public work he did -- didn't need his name on it when he helped create it, Griffin doesn't need his for helping to keep it going for another 100 years." (italics added)

The original Museum structure was the Palace of Fine Arts from the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition. The Museum was initially endowed by the father of Chicago Jewish philanthropy, Julius Rosenwald who who pledged $3 million and also recruited the Commercial Club of Chicago for further financial support supplementing municipal bond funds. Rosenwald refused offers to have the Museum named for him even as the public often called it the Rosenwald Industrial Museum.

Of interest, the Apollo 8 spacecraft is housed in Henry Crown Space Center, named for the patriarch of the Crown Family, models of generosity and philanthropy worldwide. And, there is now a Rosenwald Room, which would no doubt infuriate Julius Rosenwald were he still with us.

Griffin's incredible gift may have been conditioned on the Museum's renaming. For a $135 million gift, certainly Ken Griffin purchased the naming rights -- if he didn't ask for them, the Museum was wise to offer the honor. 

Rosenwald continues to inspire Jewish and secular philanthropy in Chicago. Griffin's modern philanthropy likewise. When I next visit the Museum with my grandchildren, I will remember Julius Rosenwald no matter the naming.

Rwexler

SHHHHH...

Chag Sukkot Sameach.

A curious Forward Op-Ed has been circulating recently --https://forward.com/opinion/432684/for-gods-sake-stop-preaching-politics-from-the-pulpit/ -- in certain circles this thing has gained a certain enthusiastic support. It seems that the author has also written such drivel as Give Trump the Benefit of the Doubt, You Give It to Democrats All the Time and No, Orthodox Jews Are Not White Supremacists -- and Neither is Trump. I think you can pretty much deduce this guy's political leanings. In fact, uf I might speculate for a moment, I'm guessing that those who endorse the "stop preaching politics" plea would not object to preaching politics if the message was supportive of President Trump -- just a guess.

You can link to the Op-Ed if you wish but you can probably also deduce the author's slant, can't you? He wants all Rabbis who might espouse positions that he opposes should just stop it. You see, the author has identified these...these miscreants...as Reform Rabbis.  If you follow his "reasoning," you have to conclude, as did this guy "that anyone who doesn't share their politics has no place in their congregation." This, of course, is specious. 

I love it when my Rabbis challenge me with their opinions; I would hope that most congregational Jews do, Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, Reconstruction, it should make no difference. The topics may range from religious practice to social justice even what some might characterize as "political." 

But the opinions expressed in the Op-Ed are those of the Managing Director, the Coalition for Jewish Values, Rabbi Yaakov Menken. If you visit this Coalition's website you will find that the CJV (yes, so important that it can self-identify as an acronym):

"... begins from the premise that something can be called an authentic Jewish value only if it is rooted in Biblical and Rabbinic teachings through millennia of Jewish history. Neither spurious references to “Tikkun Olam” nor the use of Biblical verses plucked out of context transform personal views into Jewish tenets."

Wow!! If this be a statement of "Jewish values," I have wholly failed to practice them my whole life. And if you read the position statements of the CJV you will find their version of "values" to be anything done or articulated by President Trump...anything and everything.

And, you should know that Rabbi Menken, who appears to not be a pulpit, congregational Rabbi, has done some important work in Jewish outreach and Torah teaching. I will leave it to you whether to include the CJV in any list of the esteemed Rabbi's achievements.

Now I think that the "over 1,000 Rabbis" (unnamed) whom CJV claims that it represents are entitled to their opinions and they should be free to express them through the organization or from their pulpits (if they have them).

Yes, these unidentified Rabbis should express their opinions freely, just don't try to shut up Rabbis with whom they disagree.

Rwexler