Council of Jewish Federations Says National Advisory Budgeting Would Be Voluntary

The Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds today announced that the proposal to establish a national advisory budgeting service will definitely be voted on at the forthcoming General Assenbly which will be held early in 1946 in a city yet to be selected.

“Twice approved by referendum–by the member agencies of the Council in 1941 and by the Board of Directors in 1945–the adoption of national advisory budgeting would put into operation a national method of reviewing the financial requirements of national and overseas agencies,” the announcement said. By definition this is to be done by ‘a committee acceptable both to the member agencies of the Council and to the national and overseas organizations.’

“It would function very much in the way that the well-organized federation budget committees function: as an ‘impartial and objective group concerned primarily with reaching equitable decisions which would be helpful to fund raising and to local budgetary procedures’.” the statement continued.

“The Committee would not take over the responsibility of the agencies in napping out their own programs. The definition states that the ‘national and overseas agencies would…as heretofore, determine what their budgets should be.’ The proposed national advisory budgetary committee ‘would then review the budgets and, after objective and thorough study, would attempt, together with the national and overseas agencies, to arrive at joint decisions on the amount of funds required to carry out the specific programs.’ Where joint decisions could not be reached ‘the Committee would advise the welfare funds as to the part of the agency’s budget and program of work which had been agreed upon and would present both sides of the major items of differemce.’

“The Committee would not set or recommed local quotas. It would suggest only national minimum needs of each national and overseas agency. These national goals would be ‘recommended – in an advisory way – to the welfare funds.’ As heretofore, each community would have to decide for itself which national and overseas agencies it wishes to include in its welfare fund, and what its allocation to each beneficiary should be. In other words each community would continue to retain full power to make its own budgetary decisions.”