When UJC was created, to satisfy the interests of federations and the merging organizations, the new entity was subjected, if that is the right word, with a Board of 133 members. As we at 111 have come to learn, when authority is so minutely divided, particularly in an organization so disengaged from its owners over the past three years, a power void is created. Thus, the chief professional and chief volunteer officers easily accreted power to themselves. Every leader, professionally and lay, who has looked carefully at UJC's performance relative to its cost has had to reach the same conclusion -- governance reform is a critical threshold mechanism to create an environment where change can be implement and a nimble, responsive organization created in its stead.
Further, where "the only good ideas are ours," an organization where challenge to any idea of UJC's leaders is discouraged with language such as: "are you on my team or not" -- the language of the bully -- it is a place where only the owners can demand change. Recently we read, in a different context, of a work environment where professionals could respectfully challenge, offer opposing views and push back: "If you had an opinion about (a subject), (the CEO) made it clear it was your job, your duty, to argue, yell, scream, whatever."
We here know that papers describing two potential "special campaigns" that have been transmitted to the UJC Board for its discussion next Monday, have not been fully thought through, fail to contemplate the implications upon the federation Annual Campaigns (particularly in these fragile economic times), and have not been fully discussed with the UJC staff. Yet, the Board is meeting, so out the door these went -- filled with great ideas, fraught with gaps in logic, timing and the potential conflict with the AC. If anyone at UJC pushed back, urged these "plans" be held for more input, greater discussion, the suggestion would be "you're not a team player."
We need governance reform; we need it immediately.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
i am going to say it again. you are doing no good for the national system but writing this blog. i believe if you want to sit down publicly with some of the leadership both of ujc and the federations we can get some of these issues (if there are any - and I do believe they are) on the table. By doing this this way, you are only harming the entire system.
I too am concerned about the health of the UJC system as I have been for many years. However, my efforts as a lay-leader to voice my concerns and work toward a goal have been supposedly listened to, but no action has EVER been taken and I feel like I am wasting my time. The system needs to wake up....too bad I doubt this blog will do it - noone ever seems to care!
Before addressing the substance of the topic at hand, can we please stop filling the one place in cyberspace where open discussions is allowed with pleas for quiet? I’m talking about you, “Mommy,” and others who prefer silence. Surely in the unbounded dimensions of cyberspace there is a place for the three monkeys of no-hear-see-talk to meet, but this blog is not it. Nothing personal.
Now to the governance.
UJC governance is a mirror of the governance structure in the federation system (those of you already getting a whiff of looming disaster take $1 out of petty cash). If federation=community, so goes the reasoning, then it must represent the community – and this representation is manifested by a huge board (which because of its size cannot get anything done and is ultimately rendered powerless with great frustration to the well-meaning but doomed participants).
So it stands to reason that a governance structure – UJC, federation…anywhere – composed of 100+ people will not be effective. Want proof? Well UJC has been peddling governance reform for many federations. A central pillar (dare I use that word?) of this reform is reducing the size of the board.
Why, you ask, doesn’t UJC follow its own (good) advice to federations and change its own governance structure? Actually, I have no idea. But, what I will offer below contends that it might not matter. Besides, there may be less to the UJC-federation symmetry than meets the eye.
Federations, largely operating in relatively confined and defined geographical boundaries, and wielding the clout of allocation dollars, have an easier time declaring themselves and their smaller boards as representative of their respective community (whatever that means – and I don’t mean that in a smart-assy way). In many communities, saychel has trumped ego, as folks recognize that a large board is ineffective. And because it’s local, within easy reach and touch, board shrinkage at the local level is not as threatening.
Another difference is the buy-in into the system. While many enjoy/suffer from a paradoxical relationship with their federation, agencies and donors know they cannot duplicate most annual campaigns. Yes, most annual campaigns have been flat. They still raise pretty serious dollars that otherwise might not get raised (I know this might be open to argument, but even those who might disagree here would have to admit that, at least for now, jettisoning the annual campaign and raising those dollars via a different mechanism is a risky proposition).
What I’m trying to say is that even as federation boards shrink – and a sense of direct representation/influence on the local federation processes shrinks with it, agencies and donors still see the federation as the center of the local organized Jewish community. When the board was large these constituencies accepted the primacy of the federation as the leader of the community and with a reduced board this status is not diminished.
At UJC the picture is far different. There’s no buy-in to the authority of UJC, which means essentially UJC has no authority. Federations don’t see it as their leader. Nobody really feels overly obligated by UJC decisions (even as these decisions are made by governance entities that are comprised of federations!). Federations want leadership from UJC – but also want the option (and frequently exercise it) of not following. I don’t mean to insult anyone, but inside federations there is little respect for UJC and even lower expectations for any return of value.
The unwieldy size of the UJC board is, of course, a major contributor to this dysfunctionality. Frankly, I’m not sure a smaller board would make a difference because individual federations do not want to submit to a higher national authority (I make no editorial judgment on the sensibility of this posture). Nor would individual federations accept a form of representative governance whereby they have a representative on the UJC board tasked with voting or other decision-making authority that will be binding.
Bottom line: Unlike at the local federation level, where like it or not federation essentially rules, UJC has no such authority. And with real and growing doubts regarding its value-added continuing to dog (sink) it, UJC’s prospects – regardless of board size – seem rather sketchy.
I asked a former executive of a Federation what he thought and he said that in the old days UJA provided speakers and outside solicitors, gave a good brand name for the campaign (UJA), ran good missions and a young leadership cabinet (which I guess still exists) and once a year sent someone to berate the allocations committee about their division of dollars between local and overseas which nobody listened to. CJF was a smaller organization that ran a small but intimate annual meeting, gave (appreciated) aid an comfort to local professionals and offered needed personnel services. he thought the CJF budget was well under 10 million. All this may be simplistic and my community has never been a big national player but could "less is more" certainly less than 40 million(!?) be a good starting point for reform. And on "that other issue" shouldn't an organization the size of UJC have a board designated and empowered ombudsman to deal with internal grievances? Sorry for the length of my post but this situation is sad and I'm trying to be constructive. Shabbat Shalom.
Boys and Girls -- I am curious what you guys think the answer is here. Let's stipulate that Howard Rieger is not Evil (although quite possibly he is really, really inept), and that the lay leaders, like all of us, want, at base, to help and be of service to the Jewish world. Let's further assume that Mr. Rieger is not going to put himself out of a job that pays him several hundred thousand dollars a year (+ a six figure housing allowance). Even with all the grumbling that one hears about UJC from Federations, there seems to will there to pull the plug. You Boys and Girls seem clearly on the inside, and care enough to post this blog (which I, for one, appreciate). So what do you propose? Shabbat shalom, you all.
Dear Mommy Dearest,
We could do without the wire hangers from you too. If you don't think anything is wrong, clam up. As many people do think the fish smells from the head down, I encourage you to continue to comment. I've been on the receiving end of lots of calls from some brave national leadership doing their duty on the, whats seems to be biennial, "why are we losing so many goos staff from the system" study which never sees the light of day.
Speaking of seeing the light of day, I recall the time a research polling firm evaluated the media advertising for a particular local Federation and when the results were presented, it had so much bad news, that we were told "It'll never see the light of day.
Seems to be a UJC corporate ethic.
Post a Comment