---

What is very appropriate about the report is that Professor Sloane and colleagues had no bias one way or another towards the outcome, with the exception of Mr. Sloane's prominence in our community as a concerned and responsible Jewish adult interested in the wellbeing, survival and future of his heritage and institutions within the venue he resides. If the organizations in this study have any respect for Professor Sloane and his colleagues' talents, each will take the applicable section of the report as it relates to his/he respective institution and glean from it what is beneficial.
One thing which this writer has opined on multiple times previously and does so again here. The Federation's role in this report was suggested as vital to the community and it seemed to believe that its mission and purpose should be expanded, not decreased. Central to this purpose was the notion that its sources of revenue through added avenues of philanthropy can accomplish this and a necessity of augmenting its full-time staff. This author believes, parenthetically, that while at the surface this is prudent and meritorious, Federation's role in this community of late and its cost of doing business has been grossly unimpressive, its strategic decisions woefully incorrect, its candor in responding to publicly raised matters deceptive and conflicting and its professed justification for its existence mediocre. This writer re-enforces the following points:

1. Its current degree of true philanthropy only about 58% on revenue intake,
2. Its "loading factor", or cost of doing business, is about 42% of intake,
3. Its executive staff has given multiple explanations for the true cost of pure overhead, be it 23, 28 or whatever per cent,
4. Its executive staff has failed on multiple instances to provide a justification and accounting for the category allotted to fundraising and programming-an amount close to if not over $200,000.00 of its annual budget-and explained with candor and succinct detail where that money went and what tangential result did it hold for the Jewish community at large,
5. Its executive staff has still not been able to dispense sound justification for continuity of its philanthropic mission when it does, in fact, compete for a good number of the same dollars its beneficiary agencies likewise seek,
6. Its executive staff opts to refer to its critics as "naysayers" because this group chooses to criticize Federation based on the very same figures its management provides and with the same clarity by which same are disseminated.

This writer also has the added advantage of authoring this document, and others, strictly absent any bias, ill will or bone of contention against any Federation employee or volunteer or against the organization itself. In addition, this author has never engaged in any competing or adverse business relationship with the entity
called Federation, its volunteer or employee constituency.

Not until such assurances as a lower percentage cost of doing business, greater candor with the constituency it asserts it is trying to serve and a more consistent standard of information is delivered from the Federation would this author ever endorse continuing to subsidize an outdated, outmoded and woefully inefficient standard of trying to legitimize the business of philanthropy for regional Judaic causes. If someone wants to be philanthropic, make your donations to the named Federation beneficiary agencies directly and it will be money more prudently spent.

Russell S. Grand
Salem, MA