Taking issue with the announcement of the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds that the Jewish communities of America went on record in favor of the establishment of a national advisory budgeting service in the referendum that was recently conducted among member agencies, the Committee on the Referendum for Budgeting, headed by Simon Shetzer of Detroit, which opposes the establishment of a budgeting service, issued a statement today challenging the interpretation which the Council gave to the results of the voting.
Declaring that the board of directors of the Council of Federations “was advised by the committee of tellers that 54 cities have accepted the proposal to establish a National Advisory Budgeting Service, while 53 rejected it,” the opposing group claims in its statement, that:
(1) The Board was also apprised by the opposition that at least six other communities, making a total of 59, had voted to reject the proposal. These six communities have, according to the statement, so advised the Council by telegram, but their votes were not counted or accepted.
(2) Seven major communities, including Cleveland, Boston, Toledo and Houston, had tabled the proposal because of unwillingness to inject a controversial issue into American Jewish community life. More than a score of other communities decided to take no action on the issue, while the remainder of the communities were apparently not concerned at all with the issue, according to the statement.
(3) Included in the 54 communities which voted in favor of the national advisory budgetary service were the New York City Federation for Support of Jewish Philanthropic Societies, which has no relationship to fund-raising in New York City for national and overseas purposes; also the two Canadian towns of Vancouver, B;C., and Hamilton, Ont., which are not concerned with American fund-raising agencies, as well as a number of local agencies which are not concerned with fund-raising for national or overseas purposes, but constitute that branch of the local community organization devoted exclusively to local purposes.
(4) The Committee on the Referendum, as the only organized body of those opposing the establishment of the budgeting service, was not consulted with respect to the formulation of the program adopted by the Council’s Board of directors at its meeting on May 17 in New York.
As a result of these claims, the Committee on the Referendum for Budgeting announces it will continue its opposition “to show that the Council of Federations and Welfare Funds has not given the proper consideration to the major sentiment of the American Jewish communities.” The statement concludes with the assertion that “the Council is going forward on the basis of a minority opinion” and points out that “66 per cent of the communities either rejected, tabled or ignored the Council proposal.”
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
