One of our prime goals at eJewish Philanthropy is “to create dialogue and advance the conversation.”
With this in mind, we welcome long time Chicago communal leader Richard Wexler to kick off a discussion, with a thought provoking op-ed, on moving the UJC forward under their new leadership team. We invite you to join the conversation.
“In an ad on the (Detroit) Lions’ website for streaming video of old games, fans of the team, which went 0-16 last year, were exhorted to RELIVE THE 2008 SEASON.” (Sports Illustrated, July 27, 2009)
UJC can’t afford to “relive” this last year – or any of the five that preceded it. It has moved over this half decade, like the NFL Detroit Lions, steadily backward and downward. Now, at a time of incredible crisis for the federations, UJC will be led going forward, by a new Board Chair, whose federation experience comes from her leadership of the Greensboro Federation and the UJC Small Cities Group, and, of course, her terms as Chair of UJC’s Executive, and a new CEO, whose federation experience is…well… almost nil. But, history teaches us that pre-judgments are dangerous. After all as FDR’s train traveled from Hyde Park, New York, to Washington for his first inaugural, many feared that his greatest strength would be his “charm.” And I certainly find both Kathy and Jerry to be possessed of immense charm. Their opportunity was best described by Rahm Emanuel: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” The death rattle crisis into which UJC has been thrown is the new leadership’s opportunity; they cannot allow it to go to waste.
The hope that you and I share the belief that, unlike the current leadership who have insisted that those with whom they surrounded themselves would be but echo chambers for their imposed policies, Kathy Manning, now in the post of Board Chair, and Jerry Silverman, who by reputation and representation, are leaders who welcome dissent and debate, will, as well, represent a new paradigm. G-d knows we need a new model – one that is, my word, federationcentric.
Our new leaders face a time of great uncertainty, one in which the professional leaders of too many federations are asking whether the “federation model” with which we grew up is now over. (For Jerry Silverman’s main informant on federation life, Barry Shrage, this has been a mantra – maybe for him a self-fulfilling prophesy – for at least a decade.) Thus, so many federations which have searched for successor professional leadership have turned away from those trained and experienced in federation life searching, instead, for something they term “outside the box” (which really means, in most of those instances, “know nothing about the box”).
Some articulate the belief that we will emerge from the economic crisis that impacts us, donors across the board, our agencies, our communities into a “post-federation world.” A world where the very construct of “collective responsibility” and collective action will be replaced by some form of voluntary collaboration that really means nothing more than “every man and woman for himself/herself.” “Community” with a capital “C” will be reduced to a “community of one,” a “community of me.” “Federation” would become a small-time “manager” of multiple campaigns, if that – a certain prescription for communal chaos leading to communal disintegration – kind of a perverse “back to the future.”
Gary Tobin, z’l, just months before his untimely death, observed, in his trenchant and candid fashion, in The Jewish Journal, that “…in all but a few cities, the old federation model is no longer effective.” He concluded that most Jewish communities have outgrown the geography that their federation was founded upon. Speaking of the largest federations of the West, Tobin said that they, with miles of connecting Freeways and transient culture “…can’t be served by a federation that uses, say, the same model as Baltimore, which is a centralized, dense and highly affiliated Jewish community.” While Jerry Silverman is visiting federations to “listen and learn,” he will surely find that there is no single answer to the questions of “what is the federation model of today and how can UJC best serve the system?” If UJC has any role, it is to learn how to maintain “federation qua federation” as the central address and central planing and fund raising entity in multiple community cultures and environments.
Thus, the questions: can leaders with no real experience in leading federations, no real experience in building community, lead us out of the economic ruins and away from the politically, morally and organizationally unsustainable present of UJC that was constructed (or deconstructed) by their predecessors? Can they lead us and the system to a brighter future for the federations and, thereby, for UJC; or will they be so beset with trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together as to be unable to look forward? Can they, first, restore trust and instill integrity in an organization that has (a) failed to build trust (while demanding it) and (b) shown no respect for the wishes let alone the needs of its owners? I know that UJC can succeed only with leaders who know both the words and the music – one without the other won’t succeed. Kathy Manning knows both; now she will have to transmit the words and music to all of us.
My suggestion: start by listening (something to which Silverman and Manning are clearly committed) and by “confessing error.” The past five years of UJC were not prologue; they were nothing. We will move forward looking backward at these past few years only as a guidepost of “what not to do.” UJC’s focus must be on developing a vision of what the federation of tomorrow will look like; of where federation focus must be – from that will emerge a vision of what UJC must become.
But, we can’t wait for a year or two. Once again, I urge Kathy and Jerry, upon their succession, to convene a Federations of North America Retreat (ala the McDonald’s Oak Brook Retreat of 1999). Let’s have Papers presented in advance by, e.g., Steve Nasatir, Barry Shrage, Misha Galperin, John Ruskay, Steve Hoffman, Jeff Klein, Lee Wunsch, Doug Seserman, Mark Charendoff, Gary Rosenblatt, Yossi Abramowitz and Jeff Solomon; let’s hear from Natan Sharansky and Steve Schwager and from a panel of federation lay leaders offering different perspectives of the federation movement in 2010 – Stanley Gold, Steve Selig, Morris Offit, Lori Klinghoffer, John Shapiro, Arlene Kaufman, Rani Garfinkle, David Sherman and others (this is not meant to be an exhaustive list).
We desperately need an accountable, transparent UJC. Let’s decide what we want to be and what we believe UJC can be. And, then, let’s vote to commit ourselves to financially support that emerging model at a specific budget level for the next five years without qualification or condition.
Then, let’s go to work.
Richard Wexler, a long-time lay leader, is a Board Member of UJC, JUF Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, the Boards of JAFI and JAFI NA. Richard is also a member of his Federation’s Executive Committee.
Jonah Halper says
August 11, 2009 at 3:34 pmMr. Wexler has made some very good observations and for the most part, especially the need for Federation to reinvent itself and the recommended process for that, I agree 100%.
I do think however he needs to fine tune his estimation on philanthropy today. This is not an age of every man for himself. This is not a “community of one”, rather the community is no longer being defined by brick and mortar institutions and predetermined groups and affiliations. Rather community is being defined and set by the initiatives themselves.
Let me draw a parallel from the tech world that will make this clear. Google and Firefox have a foundational principle in common. They are open source. This means there is no fixed program that users must either take or leave, rather the program and its experience is completely determined by the user and this of course is a basic tenet in web 2.0.
This completely new business model is seen in philanthropy as well. The cause or initiative is what brings individuals together. No longer the institution. The community is there, but it is now more efficient, because the community exists now solely to effect change in the initiative and when that initiative ends, so does that community.
Is this right or wrong? Is this how Judaism views community? The answer is “It doesn’t make a difference….this is the new reality”.
So either Federations serves the initiative by becoming “open source”, which means to me a clearinghouse for leadership development and a “resource room” for individuals and adhoc community to help them make informed decisions, or else most Federations will become less and less relevant or fade away completely.
Ruth Flicker says
August 11, 2009 at 5:05 pmThe consumerism and sense of entitlement that have characterized many senior Federation leaders (both lay and professional) have displaced Federations from their place of centrality in the Jewish community. Far too many Jews with a great deal to offer have been turned off by this sort of Federation-centric model. The crisis in the Federation world today is a consequence of a tradition of inequality and lack of diversity.
What is sad is that this crisis has been in the making for over 40 years despite many initiatives by Federations to design inclusive processes. Sadly, many of these initiatives were only superficial and far too many Jews, when they tried to become involved with their local Federations, experienced themselves as being marginalized. They ultimately voted with their feet. They walked away, and have not looked back, after experiencing Federation’s ideology as concentrating power into the hands of a select and often self-perpetuating few. These Jews perceived that they were invited to sit through processes that, while ostensibly democratic decision-making forums, amounted merely to participating in a culture of complaint and blame.
We live in a time when many new organizations for social justice and environmental sustainability have coalesced. Their activist leaders do not look for those in charge – governments or traditional mainstay organizations – to make the changes they desire. They act to bring about change themselves. They create networks that organize, educate and advocate. These activists are wary about creating structures that become so large and bureaucratic that participants find themselves again dependent on hierarchy and authority figures.
I believe that the Federations’ only chance at success in this new world depends on recognizing the need for transforming their structures and processes; recognizing the diversity of our Jewish world; eliciting ideas from those on the inside and those on the fringes; and creating collective models that move us away from a “monopoly system” of people and practices.
For our new leaders to succeed, they cannot begin their new mandate by going on a “listening tour” in search of any one path or one way. Positive change will not come from establishing the right policies, the right program, or even a better ideology. It will come from building many paths that lead to many new ways.
The good news is that times of economic, social and environmental crisis present opportunities to make transformative changes. We are blessed to have found leaders who come from both the inside and the outside. Let us hope these leaders have the energy, skill, and determination to produce profound and much-needed change.
Ruth Flicker, President, RRF Human Development Consultants Inc.
Jonah Halper says
August 11, 2009 at 7:50 pmIF the Federation system is to survive collectively, it will have to come from the UJC. If this “listening tour” is purely to get buy-in from Federation leadership for a specific plan already in the works to alter the current course, then it makes sense. HOWEVER, if the plan is going to be formed from the feedback from the Federations, I am afraid that we will see little change. The UJC is often a scapegoat for issues on a local level, but the struggle with system wide donor attrition is not the UJC’s fault, but UJC should be charged with creating and directing change in each community.
Jonathan Woocher says
August 11, 2009 at 7:51 pmAs an occasional reader of Richard’s blog, I have to confess that I find little of value in his comments there or here. Other than his customary dismissal of the current leadership of UJC, and his call for more “listening,” what exactly is he proposing that addresses the very real transformations that are taking place in American Jewish life, philanthropy, and the federation system? I suppose that some federation leaders would like to return to the good-old days when federation was the unchallenged “central address” of the local Jewish community, but even the metaphor is outdated in a networked world.
(For those who don’t read Richard regularly, it may be helpful to add that when he gets down to specifics about what federations and UJC should be doing – which is rare – it usually boils down to… more support for the annual campaign, JAFI, and JDC. This is not, I would suggest, the direction that is likely to make federations more relevant and compelling.)
The challenge to federations is, as Jonah Halper describes it, to foster community in a world where there are no “central addresses.” The good news is that Jewish community and responsibility are alive and well. There is energy on so many different fronts — education, arts and culture, social justice and activism, environmental stewardship, technology, spirituality and worship, inclusion and outreach, building global connections — that federations should be positively giddy with the opportunities that exist to use their still formidable skills in community organization and financial resource development in order to spur and support the emergence of a new 21st century model of Jewish community. Some federations — I don’t want to name names for fear of leaving someone deserving of inclusion out — are embracing this opportunity, and not sacrificing their historic commitment to serving Jews (and others) in need in the process.
Richard is right about one thing. Federations and UJC have no need to look backward. They do need to look outward, to see what is happening in the world around them and to become part of the creative and at times disruptive (the two often go together) re-invention of the Jewish community that is taking place. Choosing someone like Jerry Silverman to be the next professional head of UJC is the most promising sign one could have hoped for that the people at UJC (Richard to the contrary notwithstanding) do get it. The spirit of collaboration, innovation, energy, and results-orientation that he has brought to the world of Jewish camp is exactly what the federation system needs.
I am far from ready to give up on federations. I think the recent economic meltdown has served a useful purpose (though not without a great cost) by showing starkly that the path the federation system was on, marked by barely rising campaigns and rapidly decreasing donor rolls, could not be sustained. To their credit, the leadership of UJC understood this (I’m not sure that Richard does yet) and began the painful process of reorienting a drifting organization. I trust that Kathy and Jerry, together with the many lay and professional leaders around the continent who share their belief that federations can still be an enormous force for good, will continue that process.
E,B. Abuya says
August 12, 2009 at 4:25 amWhen the history of American Jewry over the past few decades is written I’m sure JAFI, JDC and the annual campaign won’t be the derisive footnotes Mr. Woocher seems to imply… (his agency itself a creation and often favored client of the national system).
(and come now sir, you read Mr. Wexler’s blog “only occasional”?? and seldom find it illuminating? myriad readers think otherwise – but a guy gotta say what a guy gotta say.)
Mr. Halper’s thoughtful comment is more challenging. If donors come together in an open source model can services be delivered in a similar fashion? beyond the direct transfer of cash or the occassional happening? I would think not? And if not, what is in store for those truly not casually dependent on community services?
Stephen Bayer says
August 12, 2009 at 2:41 pmWhen discussing issues facing the Federation system and his proposal for a national retreat to address them it’s interesting to note that Mr Wexler’s litany of professional leadership does not include a single woman. He manages
to name a few when he gets to a listing of lay leaders. What’s wrong with this picture?
Jonah Halper says
August 12, 2009 at 3:35 pmEB,
There is clearly going to be a major issue when it comes to supporting communal infrastructure…what happens to the funding a Jewish Family Service or a JCC gets when they rely on a hefty allocation from their local Federation?
I think direct service agencies will survive, but they will need to ride out the transition from where dollars typically funneled to Federation make its way directly to the agencies without the middle man.
Just like in the corporate world, weaker companies will not make it, but if an agency is worth keeping anyway, then the stakeholders will rally for the organization directly…which, of course speaks directly to an open source model of giving.