The Council of Jewish Federations has approved new bylaws that will turn the umbrella organization into a parliament of its member federations.
But that small step of organizational reorganization represents a giant leap for the concept of an American Jewish community larger than the sum of its parts.
Much as the U.S. Constitution put issues of federalism and states rights at the center of political discussion for two centuries, the restructuring of the council is only the beginning of what is likely to be a protracted debate on who should control money raised by local federations.
Should the money be allocated by the community that raised it? Or should the needs of the North American Jewish community as a whole dictate priorities, just as the decisions on how to spend the funds passed on to Israel are made by central bodies?
The federal idea — what is being referred to by federation leaders as “fair share” payment to meet “continental responsibilities” — was developed in recent years in response to the massive exodus of Jews from the former Soviet Union.
Federations created a formula for allocating among themselves the responsibility for resettling immigrants in America and for guaranteeing $900 million worth of loans for immigrants to Israel. These allocations were based on the size of the communities and the amount they were able to raise for their federation campaigns.
But the new institutionalization of the principles of fair share and collective responsibility comes at a crucial time for the CJF, as it shifts its focus away from helping imperiled Jews around the world and toward the issue of ensuring the survival of American Jewry in the face of rampant assimilation and intermarriage.
In addressing that issue, the federations face fewer clearcut answers and a level of controversy perhaps jarring for institutions much more comfortable working within a consensus.
With its new form of governance, the CJF has become, arguably, the most democratic American Jewish organization, and the closest the Jews of the United States have come to a national Jewish congress.
The new CJF board of delegates consists of representatives of its nearly 200 member federations, with each delegation reflecting the size of the community and its campaign. This replaces a board of directors which, while striving for geographic representation, was truly accountable only to itself.
And the newly formed executive committee, a body of about 50 individuals overseeing CJF’s day-to-day operations, will be more representative than its predecessor under the old bylaws. The new committee will have drawn from small, medium and large federations from each of four regions in the United States and one in Canada.
This shift of power, from a board of individuals to a board representing federations, has aroused little controversy. What has aroused controversy, however, is the creation of a new power of the CJF to raise a binding levy on its member federations.
This levy could be ratified in one of two ways: either by 85 percent of the delegates and 85 percent of the federations; or, more controversially still, by 85 percent of the much smaller CJF executive committee.
The actual impact of this clause, as approved, is minimal, since a ceiling for the levy was set at 0.1 percent of the overall federation campaign, or roughly $800,000.
That figure is less than the amount recently approved under a non-binding fair- share formula to aid the Florida Jewish community in the wake of Hurricane Andrew in September.
But the clause is seen by both its proponents and its opponents as the beginning of things to come. If it works, the dollar ceiling could be raised – – enabling the federation system as a whole to take broader action.
This communal mandate will inevitably come at the expense of local autonomy. And that, say some federations, is not a good thing.
“We are frankly opposed,” Phillip Pinsky, president of the Syracuse, N.Y., federation said last Friday, before his delegation cast two of the 16 votes opposing the new bylaws. The change received 407 votes in favor, passing by a large margin.
Pinsky cautioned that his federation had yet to decide how it would deal with a bill from CJF for the $1,000 it could be asked to pay under the new bylaws.
Those who advocated the new system do not dispute that it could ultimately lead to a national decision-making authority.
But, said Conrad Giles, a vice president of the CJF and co-chairman of the committee which drafted the new bylaws, “that can only evolve as a result of the federations who are sitting here.”
“When you say this is a tax,” the other co-chairman, David Sacks, said prior to the vote, “I don’t quarrel with the concept, though I don’t like the language. But this additional amount can only be assessed with 85 percent approval,” in contrast to CJF dues, which are assessed by a simple majority.
As to concerns that the executive committee could on its own levy the tax without a consensus, Sacks pointed out that member federations must first be notified of the issue and given the opportunity to make their feelings known to the committee.
Said Giles: “This last (presidential) election turned on, trust me, read my lips. One thing this system has is, we trust ourselves. We do have a history together. The only way we can move forward is with a sense of trust.”
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
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.