The departure of Eli Kornreich, long time President/CEO of the Bridgeport Jewish Community Center Services (a Federation and JCC), will no doubt prompt a more far reaching discussion than one merely centered on the issue of succession. First, we wish Eli well in his future endeavors. His tenure has been difficult and after bringing a measure of stability to his Federation in the mid-90’s, he’s been roughly treated by the same difficulties that have affected all of Connecticut’s Jewish communities. It’s clear that it has been an even rougher go for Bridgeport.

Bridgeport is Connecticut’s largest city and is in some ways the most affected by this state’s pressing problems. An unhealthy economy that drains Connecticut of its promising young, while deteriorating school systems push those who stay to outlying suburbs with their better schools, but fewer Jews, does not help a Jewish community grow and prosper. The splintering of the Bridgeport community has been faster and more complete than most others. New Haven, Hartford and Stamford — the Federations in the state most comparable to Bridgeport — all have similar difficulties, but had either the good fortune or foresight to deal with some of their problems before they became acute.
Bridgeport’s special burden revolves around a Jewish Community Center that no longer serves the needs of a majority of Jewish families in that Federation’s catchment area. The community’s preoccupation with the center over the years has deterred it from addressing many of its other needs and from developing programming alternatives to better insulate its constituency from the negative trends affecting it. The communities commitment to its Center will most certainly be questioned, as it has in the past.
Meanwhile, something for the rest of the state to consider is the very structure of the Federation system throughout Connecticut. There are nine Federations in the state, with five of them clustered around Fairfield County. Some have already passed the point of viability in their current form, while others need new rationalizations and consolidation. While the state’s geographical sprawl argues for the continuation of a nine Federation system, there are enough serious challenges so that a change in the status quo is necessary and at the very least mutual cooperation in tackling common problems ought to be considered. This isn’t a problem unique to Connecticut and unfortunately there have been no solutions forthcoming from other places with similar problems around the country. Connecticut might have to break new ground.
The major problem with instituting any change in the state’s system is that there is no statewide lay constituency that can speak out on these issues. [There are statewide organizations with strong lay leadership like ADL, AJC and AIPAC, but they direct their energies, by and large, to efforts outside of Connecticut. ] Each of our existing Federations has its own lay leadership whose concern is rightly their own community. But their true self interest might lie in giving their professionals a mandate to find a better way to handle the many common problems they face. That would be a bold and major step. Not conferences, strataegic plans and more meetings, but an action oriented agenda directed by professionals and strongly supported by an informed statewide lay leadership. This is a part of the equation for positive reform that is missing and is sorely needed. Little will happen without it.
For now though, Bridgeport is faced with the difficult task of searching for a new Executive Director. Finding a talent who can grapple with the problems unique to Bridgeport while facing down the national trends that impact all Jewish organizations is a serious challenge. The lay leadership of Bridgeport will be sorely tested and hopefully will rise to the task.

-nrg

Comments are closed.