Federation: Water under the bridge, or too little, too late?

When The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles sent out a call to action last month, officials hoped the result would be vocal, community-wide opposition against the Iran deal. Instead, the message led to an outcry by some against Federation itself for getting involved in the matter.

A second email, on Aug. 6, acknowledged the Iran issue as “complex,” but hasn’t totally calmed the waters. Some — although certainly not all —local donors who are not on the board have been reassessing their relationship with the umbrella Jewish organization, although it remains to be seen what, if any, effect it will have on fundraising.

Several donors said while they were bothered by Federation’s failure to express remorse or offer a retraction of its position in its second statement, they ultimately do not plan to scale back what they donate to the organization.

“I’m not going to try to penalize the Federation and the good work they do and the people who depend on what they do just because I didn’t agree with the handling of one issue,” Edward J. Weiss, an attorney and Federation donor, said in a phone interview. “But, by the same token, it has caused me to do some soul searching.”

Doug Mankoff, an entertainment business professional and Federation donor, echoed Weiss’ ambivalent remarks. 

“My wife and I are committed to the good work that the Federation does, and we will continue to give to the Federation, which we think is an incredibly important institution in the community, and we will give our time as well,” he said in a separate phone interview. “So, it didn’t feel good, this episode, but on the other hand, it will not stop us from continuing to give to the Federation and to work hard for the Federation.”

However, Federation donor Geoffrey Gold, an attorney, and his wife, Stephanie, who is involved with efforts to bolster philanthropic giving to the Federation among women, do plan to reduce their $2,500 annual gift to the Federation. 

“I’m definitely going to reduce my amount of contribution. I’m not going to cut it [entirely], but I’ll support the Jewish community in a different way, unless they change it or retract it,” Geoffrey Gold said. “There are other ways to support the Jewish community, with organizations that don’t turn a charity into a political branch, which is what they’ve done.” 

“I feel really conflicted about giving,” Stephanie Gold told the Journal. “I think what they do in the community here in Los Angeles and abroad for Jews is phenomenal work. I don’t want to take away from it … but I feel like when you give, you are part of their constituency. And when they speak, they are speaking for their constituency, and they don’t speak for me in this instance.”

Every year, Federation raises millions of dollars in contributions and grants: Last year, it raised approximately $58 million, according to Jay Sanderson, president and CEO. 

Federation’s original July 21 statement asked locals to contact members of Congress and oppose the agreement that would lift international sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iranian promises to curb its nuclear program for at least 10 years. It caused an uproar among community members who favor the deal and who do not support Federation making what appeared to be a blanket statement. 

The second Federation email was more inclusive, stating, “The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles respects the diversity of opinion among serious and committed members of our community, including among our own Board members. We are committed to fostering civil discourse based upon mutual respect and a willingness to listen to all sides to better understand and appreciate these difficult and complex issues.”

The 125-word statement indicated that, over the coming weeks, Federation intends to facilitate discussion and debate while working with synagogues and other community partners.

In the immediate aftermath of the release of the second statement, Federation board chairman Leslie Bider declined to elaborate on why Federation released the Aug. 6 email. 

“I believe these statements speak for themselves, and I believe the statement’s complete,” Bider said in an Aug. 6 phone interview. “It states what it states.” 

Sanderson, for his part, declined to comment on the second email. 

Richard Sandler, a member of Federation’s executive committee and the incoming chair of the Jewish Federations of North America, defended Federation’s original missive, saying members of the L.A. Federation’s communications staff drafted the letter that the 20-member executive committee submitted comments on. Fourteen members of the executive committee approved the final version, making L.A. the third major American city where a Federation explicitly opposed the deal, joining Miami and Boston. Jewish Federations in Houston, Dallas, Detroit, Phoenix and South Palm Beach, Fla., later issued similar statements opposing the deal.

Temple Israel of Hollywood Senior Rabbi John Rosove, who is a member of the J Street Rabbinic Cabinet Executive Council — J Street supports the agreement — told the Journal that he felt the second Federation statement did not go far enough in making up for what he perceived to be damage caused by the first. Still, he praised the organization’s efforts in trying to address the concerns of those who felt alienated by the initial statement. 

“I thought it was a good first step, but I think there should have been an apology for the first one and kind of a retraction, that this does not represent the full position of the board of the Federation, nor does it represent the complexity of opinions within the Los Angeles Jewish community. That’s what I would have liked to have heard,” he said. 

“I didn’t see it as an apology. It should have been an apology. There should have been more discussion about the proper role of the Federation in matters of this kind, but it was a good step forward,” he continued. “It was better.”