Budgeting Principle Backed by Restoration of Uja, Blaustein Holds

Reconstitution of the United Jewish Appeal was interpreted today by Jacob Blaustein, chairman of the committee which recommended establishment of a national advisory budget service, as indicating acceptance of the national budgeting principle by the three participating agencies. Creation of such a service is the subject of a referendum among member agencies of the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds.

Hundreds of congratulatory telegrams and letters welcoming reconstitution of the UJA have been received by Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver and Rabbi Jonah B. Wise, National Chairmen, from communal leaders throughout the country, it was announced today.

Blaustein’s views were expressed in a letter to local communities. Declaring the Joint Distribution Committee, the United Palestine Appeal and the National Refugee Service had, by reestablishing the UJA, reaffirmed their faith in objective fact-finding and evaluation by a national committee, he expressed his gratification with the agreement and urged local agencies to approve the budget service proposal.

Blaustein, who played a major role in the final negotiations for a 1941 UJA, described the service as an essential aid in the intelligent allocation of their funds to the many causes appealing to them for support. He pointed out that a precedent for fact-finding and evaluation by a national body had already been set by the Allotment Committee of the 1940 UJA.

“The responsibilities of that Committee,” he declared, “extended even beyond those contemplated in the present proposal, since the findings of that Committee were mandatory instead of advisory. It was reasonable, therefore, to expect, at least, that none of the three major agencies in the UJA would oppose a national advisory budget service if the Council’s Committee on the Study of National Budgeting Proposals, after careful study, recommended it and the Council approved it.”

Blaustein asserted that as Chairman of the Council’s Committee to study the proposals, he treated the matter as a businessman and contributor who for a long time has been deeply interested in all legitimate Jewish causes. As a result of the study which the Committee made of the pros and cons of a national advisory budget service, he said, he was convinced that it was the only way to help local welfare funds achieve understanding and fairness in their allocations.

“Such a service,” he said, “is essential and desirable, and the need for it is in no way altered by the fact that there is now to be a UJA for 1941. For remember, this national advisory budget service would apply to many organizations other than the three beneficiary agencies in the UJA; also that the UJA has been reconstituted only for 1941.”

He appealed to local communities for unity within the Jewish group, while it is having so much trouble from the “outside.”