"JFNA HATER"

I have now been described, in response to the outcry over the "zionism" controversy, as a number of things, none good, including "a JFNA hater." Anyone who knows me or who has been reading the 800 Posts that I have written, knows that it is not JFNA I "hate;" it is how JFNA has been run that I deplore...as should you.

When JFNA was created, in part through my efforts along with many others, leaders were offered an organization with Vision and purpose. Today, ask the CEO, Board Chair and Chair of the Executive for a statement of purpose and vision and you will receive a blank stare or some vague statement of what JFNA "is not." Ask them for a list of JFNA accomplishments over the past three or, even, six years and not much will be added. What we have is but a shadow of the organizations it replaced -- that was not our intent -- an organization that not only raises almost no funds; it has almost no professional staff to do so; an organization that spends millions on a Global Planning effort so dense and convoluted that it is doomed to failure while spending millions to develop a Rube Goldberg-like "process" that translates into a monumental waste of resources; a national organization of the federations that spends millions to promote its own brand; a leadership that has laid waste to the treasured partnerships with the Jewish Agency and Joint while claiming fealty to both; and a Board just thrilled to be there, leaving their sense of responsibility back home. 

That's what I "hate." 

Rwexler

THREE CARD MONTE

David Butler didn't set up a card table at the Global Planning Table Committee meeting on March 13 and put three bent cards on it in front of the gathered few; and he didn't roll out the old shell game with three cups and a pea, either. But it was sure the next best thing to that hoaried street scam. For that is what the Global Planning Table has become.

And G-d knows how many forests have been cut down to the stumps to produce the volumes of paper wasted in this first year effort "celebrated" at this first year "anniversary." But, Three Card Monte is what the GPT always was, only it has become even worse. It began even before Butler signed on in a disingenuous claim that it was designed to raise more funds for the core work of JDC and the Jewish Agency; then it morphed into "this will really help the Small Cities;" and, now, as we have written, it is the mantra that "JFNA will self-destruct if the Global Planning Table isn't implemented" -- apparently "implemented as we dictate."

So it is that about 100 pages of "Confidential" drafts and "Confidential" power points were distributed to the GPT Committee (you know, the one that lacks any power other than to "recommend" to a "Partnership [they love that word, don't they?] Steering Committee" tightly controlled by Manning and CEO Jerry) for the March 13 meeting. Several folks forwarded these documents to me -- and, I read them. I see no reason that they are "Confidential" other than the fact that the GPT leaders may rightly believe they would be embarrassed were they to be more freely distributed. After all, wouldn't you be embarrassed if a Report, preliminary or final, included something like this:

• Out of 157 federations, 23 participated in providing "community input" -- that's all of 15% -- but, don't worry, best I can tell from reading the "survey input" (in another document of course), your issues -- every one of them -- were ignored in their entirety. Did anyone at JFNA reflect on the fact that only 23 federations cared enough about this GPT -- the "saviour" of JFNA itself -- to even respond to the fervent pleas of JFNA and GPT staff and lay leaders? After all, this thing is being "sold" today as bringing down the Temple if it isn't implemented. (Oh, and also 85 -- of a "market" in the 1,000s -- individuals completed on-line Surveys.) I am not making this up;
• And, there was also ample space for total gibberish. For example, in describing "How the GPT Does Its Work," the First Year "Report" suggests, in pertinent part -- Successful partnerships central to our ability to deliver collective solutions to important issues within the global Jewish community. Uh huh.
• All of this culminates in Three Commissions and 14...that's right, 14..."Areas of Work."Nothing manageable, of course; nothing within the capacity of JFNA as proved over these past 12+ years;
• And there are going to be some "Signature Initiatives" on top of this Tower of Babel.

The documents are filled with the concept of "we" -- "we" doing this, "we" doing that. Yet, "we" is never defined. Is it seriously contemplated that "we" is JFNA which, to date, has delivered little if anything that would qualify it to deliver here; is "we" the federations; is "we," the Joint or Jewish Agency (World ORT seems left out)?

And, without breaching confidentiality, I think I can tell you that JFNA's commitment to "Zionism" is well-stated.

So, friends, let me assure you that you should be able to find the pea under the cup marked "all things to all people" -- as in, "if you don't know where you're going, any/every road will take you there.

Welcome to Year 2 of the Global Planning Table. OK, is the pea under Cup 1, 2 or 3?

Rwexler

FALLING APART

I hope that each of you had a wonderful first Seder and I wish you and yours a zissen Pesach.

I don't know whether the Federation CEOs, no matter their city-size grouping, in their annual retreats, actually talk tachlis with each other about what is going bad in their communities in an effort to assist one another. One would hope so. Yes, beyond the golf games, the distractions of staring at the barely dressed on Spring break, might they help those in need -- and there are so many in need. I am hearing that at least three Large City CEOs aren't "working out," are on the brink; and that's a real shame for them, personally, for their communities and for a system so badly frayed to begin with.

And, most sad, there is no national organization to which a CEO can turn. Because, along with almost the totality of lay leadership with any sense of history or best practices, there is not one professional at JFNA any longer with a background in federation. (Yes, for a few months more, Paul Kane is still on board, but one must ask whether anything in Paul's deep background at the New York UJA-Federation is a transferable experience.) In the past, the national organizations drew on the best and brightest of federation CEOs for their professional leaders -- from a Phil Bernstein, z'l, the pro's pro, to Marty Kraar,z'l, from Stanley Horowitz, z'l, who trained so many of the great LCEs, to Brian Lurie and Bernie Moscovitz, fonts of never-ending brilliant ideas, there was always someone at the helm for so many eras who could provide guidance   
or programmatic ideas or a group of national lay leaders on whom a federation  with a specific problem could draw. Who at JFNA today has any experience that would be of any value to any CEO (other than Bill Daroff) in any community regardless of size? The CEO has, to his credit, visited more federations than his JFNA/UJC predecessors combined -- but are those trips worth it when he speaks in that jargon of cliche and marketing (or are those the same) of how great we are and seemingly hears nothing (or, maybe, it's that he fails to understand what he is hearing)?

Wouldn't it be fair to think that after an investment in excess of $600,000,000...yes, $600,000,000...JFNA, our sad, pitiful JFNA, would have developed a team of federation-centric experts, a federation "SWAT-team," if you will, ready and able to quickly address and advise every federation in need as to how to address issues of campaign, organization, constituency, hrd...any issue; sadly, the cupboard is desperately, terribly bare. Instead, we have a "tool kit" for new CEOs...terribly deficient and totally inadequate. There are the CEOs themselves in conference calls and on their list serves, but those are hardly enough in these complex times and hardly a substitute for the capable national organization we had thought we would have had. (Mentoring might help if it really worked. I am reminded, however, of one new LCE who at a meeting with his peers lamented one thing or another. "We have to get you a mentor," one of his colleagues replied. "I have one," said the LCE seeking help, "It's you." Another CEO of a different City-size told me of his many calls to JFNA for help, and getting...nothing.) Instead, we have pros who send out Briefings about being at the White House, or writing an election report delivered by her CEO...

For far too long, federation leaders have allowed JFNA to be about...itself, and little else; lay leaders who view their roles as "follow the leader...irregardless of direction or the lack thereof; or, in the case of many...too many, "blindly protect the leader" without regard for the consequences. 

There are, it seems to this outlier, some very simple, very practical solutions. And, all of you know where to start...don't you?

Rwexler

Small Turquoise Blue Porcelain Accent Table Lamp

Features

• Small Porcelain Accent Table Lamp
• Turquoise Blue Cylinder Mounted on Dark Wood Base
• 9" bottom silk shade
• 15" high from bottom of base to top of shade
• 40 watt max.

List Price:
Get this month Special Offer: check this out!

Product Description
This cylindrical shaped turquoise blue porcelain accent lamp gives a nice punch of color to a bookshelf or chest.

Accent Table Lamps Lamp Store Small Charming Blue White Oval Porcelain Lamp. $85.00 You might have noticed that LampStore's especially partial to the blue ... Small Accent Table Lamps from Sears.com What is Marketplace at Sears.com? Marketplace at Sears.com is a community of sellers working with Sears to provide you with millions of additional items. Porcelain Table Lamps & Ceramic Table Lamps Page 2 Lamp Store Our unique ceramic table lamps bring color and flair to your home's interior design. Contemporary Table Lamps, Modern Table Lights, Crystal, Glass, Small Contemporary table lamps for the bedroom, living room, office or bedside with modern European design. Free shipping on all orders. Turquoise Lamp - Compare Prices, Reviews and Buy at Nextag Turquoise Lamp - 437 results like Cyan Design 04663-1 Vivien Table Lamp with Bulb in Turquoise/White 04663-1, Studio Silversmiths TURQUISE GLASS LAMP WITH SHADE ... Stylish Home Decor & Chic Furniture At Affordable Prices Z Gallerie Shop for Affordable Home Decor & Stylish Chic Furniture at Z Gallerie. Browse Our Unique Collection of Furniture, Art, Lamps, Sofas, Dining, Kitchen, Beds, Tables ... Turquoise Glass Lamp - Unique Home Dcor, Furniture, Gifts, and ... Turquoise lovers, rejoice. Not content just to give you a great lamp featuring a gleaming glass sphere in your all-time favorite color, we also decided to surprise ... Antique Table Lamps & Unique Victorian Lampshades by Antique Artistry DESCRIPTION: IMAGE ITEM : 4928. Fabulous, 1930's, hand pained porcelain table lamp depicts lavender cockatoos on branches with rose colored flowers and a mint green ...

ARITHMETIC

During the recent American election, the inexhaustible Bill Clinton, sarcastically criticized the Republicans for ignoring "arithmetic" in their so-called plans. I was reminded of Clinton's admonition when reading a comprehensive "Update on Federation Response to Operation Pillar of Defense." Let me say at the outset that the analysis is excellent and the work of the JFNA Israel Terror Relief Fund (the "ITRF") task force exemplary. Yet....and yet....arithmetic.

The ITRF allocated federation resources in three tranches: $3.45, $1.6 and $.6 -- a total of $5,650,000. OK, 10% over the fund raising goal but all of the allocations appear thought through with care. Yet...and yet....arithmetic. 

Nowhere in JFNA's excellent transmittal (it must have been sent to all federations and JFNA Board members -- I received a copy) is there any analysis of income...you know, the money. I know that my federation more than met its "fair share" and did so before raising the funds...but, that's all I know. What has JFNA, you know the organization that used to raise money in particular for special campaigns, done to raise the $5 million? Sent out a Memo? Called the federations one-by-one? Followed up. G-d forbid? We don't know that; we do know how the funds that may or may not be raised will be allocated, but not how or how much.

We know that there were at least two national Operation Pillar of Defense Missions  -- with no fund raising, the presence of the National Campaign Chair notwithstanding -- what follow up took place with those communal leaders and how much was subsequently raised from their communities? We don't know; we haven't been told. BUT JFNA KNOWS AND THEY AIN'T TELLING.

We know that $5 million has not been raised, only that $5.650 million has been allocated and committed by our representatives. Oh my. Arithmetic.

Rwexler

"PISTACHIOGATE"

While we are in Israel, the Prime Minister is struggling to form a coalition, riots rage on the West Bank, the Iranians accelerate their nuclear bomb implementation, and a myriad of other issues of incredible complexity face and continue to confront Israel. So, it was great to have some comic relief.

On February 18, The Jerusalem Post reported on Glidagate:

"Dreaming about eating pistachios means you will earn 'blessed money' in the near future, according to tradition. Perhaps Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was dreaming when he asked for 10,000 Shekel budget for buying pistachio and French vanilla ice cream from the high-end Jerusalem gelateria Metudela near the Prime Minister's residence.

          The entire country was up in arms when word of his large personal            
       expenditure at an ice cream store was published...revealed that
          Netanyahu asked for and received 10,000 Shekels per year to order
          ...'his personal taste' in ice cream."

There is not much to add to this "crime of the century" other than this -- after the story first broke, "customers streamed to the store from as far away as Tel Aviv and Rehovot;" incredibly, "... a kilogram of ice cream at Metudela costs 72 Shekels, meaning for 10,000 Shekels per year the firsts family and their guests are eating about 11.5 kilograms per month." FYI, 1 kilogram = 2.5 pounds or 25 pounds of this stuff per month. OMG!!

And, of course, "Netanyahu canceled the request, calling it 'extraneous'"

Another day in Israel.

Rwexler

 

PURIM SPIEL?? OR JUST SPIEL?

It's a little early, I know, for a Purim Spiel, but Boston's Federation has created one of the best...ever. So, please read what follows and then we'll talk below:


"The Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston took a donor family’s lead in creating a new program to provide jobs for young people with disabilities.

Hol­ly Hall  http://philanthropy.com/article/Boston-s-Jewish-Federation/135028/
 

Jay Ruderman, head of his family’s foundation, and several of his relatives approached Bos­ton’s Jew­ish fed­er­a­tion two years ago for help in pur­su­ing a new philanthrop­ic goal for the family: pro­vid­ing aid to young adults with dis­a­bil­i­ties. Officials at Com­bined Jew­ish Phi­lan­thro­pies of Great­er Bos­ton didn’t take any action at first, they just lis­tened very care­ful­ly.

 

Then, the federation swung into ac­tion. It reached out to Jew­ish Vocational Services, a group it had long sup­port­ed that pro­vides job train­ing to adults. Now the do­nors’ mon­ey is help­ing the vo­ca­tion­al char­i­ty serve a broad­er num­ber of cli­ents, giv­ing teen­ag­ers and college-age students with disabilities ac­cess to train­ing, in­tern­ships, and jobs.

 

The Bos­ton group is un­usu­al in its will­ing­ness to col­lab­o­rate with do­nors over where they want their mon­ey to go. As long as a pro­ject advances a Jew­ish cause and meets oth­er bas­ic cri­te­ria, do­nors can ear­mark their funds. And when do­nors sug­gest a pro­ject that the fed­er­a­tion thinks might be pop­u­lar with oth­er sup­port­ers, it might even pro­mote the idea in city­wide fundraising pitch­es.

That ap­proach is not typ­i­cal in the Jew­ish-fed­er­a­tion world, where for dec­ades lo­cal lead­ers have cho­sen which so­cial-ser­vices and other char­i­ties will ben­e­fit from the mon­ey raised in an­nu­al fundraising drives.

 

But oth­er Jew­ish char­i­ties are now con­sid­er­ing wheth­er to fol­low Bos­ton’s lead. Al­low­ing do­nors more say in where their mon­ey goes is a key rea­son the Bos­ton fed­er­a­tion has been thriv­ing in the slow eco­nom­ic re­cov­ery while those else­where con­tin­ue to face a tough time. In Boston, do­na­tions rose more than 80 per­cent last year to $132-mil­lion, help­ing Com­bined Jew­ish Phi­lan­thro­pies rise to No. 163 on the Philanthropy 400, up from No. 256 last year. And in the fis­cal year that wrapped up in June, giv­ing surged an­oth­er 60 per­cent. The fed­er­a­tion is now raising twice as much as it did in 2007, be­fore the re­ces­sion took hold.

Shift in Ap­proach

The Bos­ton fed­er­a­tion’s fundraising ap­proach evolved un­der the lead­er­ship of Bar­ry Shrage, its pres­i­dent for 25 years. He in­cor­po­rated the ear­mark­ing idea into a 2007 plan for ways of im­prov­ing con­tri­bu­tions to the or­gan­i­za­tion by more than in­cre­men­tal in­creases over the five years that fol­lowed.

 

The new ap­proach did not in­su­late the Bos­ton fed­er­a­tion en­tire­ly from the bad econ­o­my. Do­na­tions to Com­bined Jew­ish Phi­lan­thro­pies fell by 21 percent in 2009 and 14 per­cent in 2010. But with the group’s new fundraising out­look, those losses have been more than erased.

 

Bos­ton of­fi­cials have worked es­pe­cial­ly hard to col­lab­o­rate more with peo­ple who set up do­nor-ad­vised funds, ac­counts that in­di­vid­uals and fam­ilies set up at the fed­er­a­tion to make char­i­ta­ble gifts at a lat­er date. Be­cause more and more do­nors went to use some of the mon­ey for sec­u­lar causes, says Da­vid Strong, the fed­er­a­tion’s chief fi­nan­cial of­fi­cer, “we want to make them un­der­stand how we can work with them on all their phi­lan­thro­py, not just Jew­ish causes.”

That at­ti­tude, along with re­cov­ery in the stock mar­ket, Mr. Strong says, has helped gifts to do­nor-ad­vised funds to soar, to $76-mil­lion last year, and then more than dou­ble in fis­cal 2012, to $159-mil­lion.

Gains Not Typ­i­cal

Over all, few fed­er­a­tions have a­chieved such im­pres­sive re­sults. Compared with the Boston federation, al­most ev­ery oth­er Jew­ish fed­er­a­tion on the Philanthropy 400 had a much small­er in­crease or re­port­ed a de­cline in to­tal con­tri­bu­tions last year.

At the Chi­ca­go Jew­ish fed­er­a­tion, for ex­am­ple, do­na­tions were flat in 2011, de­clin­ing by 1 per­cent, even though fund­rais­ers had per­suad­ed about 70 of its most gen­er­ous do­nors to dou­ble their an­nu­al cam­paign gift.

 

Chi­ca­go takes an ap­proach sim­i­lar to that of oth­er fed­er­a­tions in urg­ing its do­nors to make un­re­strict­ed do­na­tions. Mr. Schrage says that what both­ers him a­bout that long-held tra­di­tion at the fed­er­a­tions is that it fa­vors the same “en­ti­tled in­sti­tu­tions” year af­ter year and is “gen­er­al­ly emp­ty of vi­sion and pur­pose.”

With lit­tle rea­son to donate more, he says, do­nors sim­ply contribute a lit­tle more ev­ery year when they might give big in­creases if they were ex­cit­ed a­bout a cause or asked to pay at­ten­tion to new and press­ing concerns.

 

While some fed­er­a­tions have philo­soph­i­cal ob­jec­tions to let­ting do­nors have so much say, they also have a prac­ti­cal con­cern: Will peo­ple give as much in unrestricted mon­ey to an­nu­al cam­paigns if they are al­lowed to ear­mark a por­tion of their do­na­tions?

As it turns out, the Bos­ton campaign hasn’t suf­fered from of­fer­ing the op­tion.

 

Its an­nu­al drive will raise $45.6-mil­lion this year. It’s one of the fast­est-grow­ing cam­paigns a­mong fed­er­a­tions in big cit­ies, says Jer­ry Sil­ver­man, pres­i­dent of Jew­ish Fed­er­a­tions of North America, an um­brel­la or­gan­i­za­tion for 155 fed­er­a­tions.

 

Over the past five years, do­nors who ear­marked a por­tion of their gifts for par­tic­u­lar causes in­creased their un­re­strict­ed gifts at twice the rate of oth­er do­nors, the Bos­ton fed­er­a­tion found.

While oth­er fed­er­a­tions may be sub­ject to crit­i­cism from do­nors or board mem­bers if they em­u­late Bos­ton, Mr. Sil­ver­man says the fed­er­a­tion is “on the lead­ing edge of be­ing able to rec­og­nize a shift in their mar­ket and be­ing able to adapt, ap­ply, and grow—and raise the me­ter on re­sults.”

 

Oth­er Jew­ish fed­er­a­tions have tak­en no­tice and sent staff mem­bers to Bos­ton to learn more a­bout Com­bined Jew­ish Phi­lan­thro­pies’ in­ter­nal op­er­a­tions and its re­la­tion­ships with do­nors, says Zamira Korff, sen­ior vice pres­i­dent for de­vel­op­ment. “There is a sense of emo­tion­al and in­tel­lec­tu­al part­ner­ship” with do­nors, she says. “We are not just hand­ing out a menu of giv­ing op­por­tu­ni­ties.”

Serv­ing as an ex­am­ple to oth­ers, she adds, can be both ex­hila­rat­ing and daunt­ing. “It’s a high-wire act,” she says. “The more we suc­ceed, the more pres­sure we have to keep the bar high.”

 

As Vice-President Biden might say: "this is just a bunch of malarkey." Had the reporter -- for the Chronicle of Philanthropy of all places -- understood the basics of Jewish Federation FRD, she would have known that she had been served a plate of hogwash. Let's look at some facts:

• Boston with the same Jewish population as Chicago, claimed to have raised $45.6 million -- Chicago, which Barry Shrage for some bizarre reason chose to criticize, raised $80 million in that same year;
• And, Boston has historically lumped together its designated gifts (which, at last look, comprised the lion's share of its Annual Campaign), while the $80 million Chicago reported was the amount of unrestricted gifts;
• It was Boston which was the first Federation to unilaterally reduce its overseas allocation after committing, at the creation of what is now JFNA, along with all other federations, to maintain the level of overseas allocations for two years; and
• After the Fair Share Dues obligation was imposed by the Federations upon themselves, it was the Boston CJP which was the first to demand that JFNA recalculate its dues, subtracting from its annual campaign totals the very designated gifts it now brags has set "the bar high."

Then there are the quotes from CEO Silverman that reflect how little he still understands of where federations must be -- to suggest that Boston "is on the leading edge" by embracing designated giving as its mantra, is strange in that "donor choice" has been around for a long time....a long, long time. Strange that CEO Jerry would not have known that, thinks its something new and different. Stranger still is that the "collaborative model" was developed at JFNA (back when it had an FRD Department) -- but why would Jerry know that?

Friends, you should know, as the reporter could have easily learned, that Boston's professional leader has been attempting to peddle his anti-federation message for too long -- with its suggestions of deconstructing the very basis of federation as the central planning instrument of the Jewish community. Now he used "statistics" that bear no relationship to truly raising money...and who applauds it? CEO Jerry Silverman.

Boston embarked on its anti-federation journey long ago. Barry Shrage has been trying to sell his community's story -- which is one of lack of success clothed in a camouflage jacket of so-called "cutting edge innovation" for as long as we've known him. Now, with further proof that 55% of all statistics are wrong, he has "convinced" the Chronicle and Jerry Silverman. Pitiful that some will now buy into it without regard for the facts.

Sad indeed.

Rwexler

MISSIONS...AND FUND RAISING

If there is one change I would hope the new JFNA Chairs would make -- after getting rid of or significantly downsizing the GPT -- it would be to revive the organization as an effective fund raising leader for our system. And one way to do so would be to understand, as the Chairs do but, apparently no others do, would be to assure that no national Mission ever again is without a fund raising component. That's not the case today.

Case(s) in point -- the most recent Solidarity Missions bringing leaders to Israel to experience first hand what our Israeli mishpacha was experiencing during that Terrorists War on Israel. Our message of "we are with you" appears to have been so well-delivered and so appreciated. Participants on both of these Missions have told me first-hand how meaningful the experience was to them...and that there was no fund raising whatsoever. Most amazing of all -- one of these Missions was led by the National Campaign Chair herself. From her own experiences over the years, she knows better. Way, way better. Yet, she has failed to raise the level of JFNA engagement with fund raising over Terms that now far exceed any...any...of her predecessors.

Yes, Mission experiences...these Solidarity Mission experiences...have value in and of themselves. But all of us who have had those experiences know and understand that those experiences have even more meaning when one expresses himself and herself, with the financial commitment that grows out of the Mission experiences. And, here is but one place where JFNA's past leaders and its current Philanthropic Resources Chair have failed us -- for they know (or at least once knew) that one expression of our values is in our campaigns, now almost totally ignored.

At the beginning of what is now JFNA, there was agreement, expressed in the merger supporting documents, that JFNA would have a "leadership of equals" -- Board Chair, Executive Chair and National Campaign Chair, the last being an expression of the federations' commitment to "more dollars and more donors." Over time, the National Campaign Chair's role has been reduced to the Chair of an important Committee, Philanthropic Resources; there is no troika at the top.

And just as the framing title has been "rebranded" (isn't that what we do?), eliminating even the word "Campaign" from the JFNA lexicon, so has the critical emphasis of the organization to the Annual Campaign, the lifeblood, been down-graded and, generally, ignored but for a speech now and then. No more do we here goals of "one billion dollars and one million donors" -- we have had no national aspirations for at least the last six years and certainly over the last three plus.

We are but a shadow of what we once were. And more's the pity.

Rwexler

THE ULTIMATE POTEMKIN VILLAGE

JFNA has managed to become nothing more than the Potemkin Village of Jewish organizational life. It is a facade behind which is hidden a vast nothingness -- a void into which the federations pour $30.3 million in an unquestioning and obsequious manner. There can no longer be any question about what the federations receive in return for their payment year after years, some in the seven figures...in the millions...to an organization without any sense of responsibility to the federations which own them.

The return on investment remains what one would expect from a Potemkin Village or worse. One Commentator reflected on CEO Jerry and the GPT:

"If toys just seem to incite too many quarrels and tugs-of-war, you may want to steer clear of them altogether and engage your Jerry and his playmates in a project such as the GPT, making pretend cookies with modeling clay or drawing pictures. That way, they can be involved in the same fun activities without having to share possessions."

Another then wrote that it's far worse -- more "like giving children dynamite." Because they either know not what they are doing or just don't care or are thinking "boy this is gonna be my legacy" these interlopers are willing to go "all in" putting the entirety of JFNA if not the federations at risk for literally nothing...for the Potemkin Village that is the Global Planning Table.

Even the most dense among those pushing the GPT understand that the results of all those JFNA papers (in the main futile exercises in the suspension of disbelief) will be the distribution of small amounts (but still in the millions) to a distribution list on many in JFNA's attempt to curry favor with favored NGOs in Israel. I am reminded of one Large City which had about $150,000 "left over" from a special campaign in the early 90s. Rather than distribute those funds to JAFI or JDC where they might have an impact, that Large City chose to divide the $150,000 among 30 NGOs -- caring only about clout among the 30, not about the impact its funds might have. Because, and trust me on this one, the GPT is nothing more than a camouflaged effort for JFNA through the Global Planning Table to become the "player" in Israel that it wants to be but isn't...and never will be. (This JFNA belief that it can be a "player" by doling out miniscule amounts can be equated with its attempts to "sell" TribeFest because that failed exercise in wasting communal assets attracted tens of "partners" (a term that for JFNA is without any meaning whatsoever) which, themselves, offer little to the federations which have provided the millions already wasted on this effort in....what, exactly...and will now be called upon to waste even more.)

Then there is the reality that decisions on allocations should best be left to the market -- the exact direction these decisions were headed until a couple of people at JFNA decided they knew better than the partners, better than the federations, better than the donors and imposed their will on a system to weak or too disinterested to push back. Yes, the market, as evidenced by the many federations that no longer felt bound by decisions made by the overseas partners any longer, had already made the "split" -- that red herring bane of the system's existence -- an irrelevancy. Federations are already controlling the overseas allocation as never before. And, now, through the convoluted GPT JFNA would snatch the overseas allocation away -- to a much worse place; to the Potemkin Village that JFNA is.
 
At the end of the day, federations are being asked to delegate their overseas allocation function, so treasured by the communities and so vital to their donors, to a failed organization. Federations which resist, and there will be many...many...will again be told: "If you reject the GPT, you will destroy our system." This is no more than JFNA doublespeak -- for the reality is "if you divert funds to this GPT, that will be the end of trust."

Rwexler