November 6, 2009 | 8:08 pm

The 18 Rabbis Principle

Posted by Jack Weiss

    Israeli Consul General Yaki Dayan’s recent rabbinic unity mission to Israel was brilliant, successful, and simple.  Yasher Koach to Yaki and the rabbis who joined him.

    Too often we Jews focus on differences among us.  The genius of Yaki’s idea was to show American Jews how Israel can unite us, and to show Israeli Jews how different branches of Judaism can demonstrate basic respect for one another.  (And there were 18 rabbis on the trip—I don’t think anyone in Israel missed the symbolism.)

    The trip has been well-covered, both in this newspaper and in others.  I thought I would collect the links to the coverage here so readers would have easy access to them.

    I also wanted to post about this trip because, as Yaki notes, this has to be the beginning of something.

Multi-denominational LA rabbis find their unity - in Israel
L.A. rabbis unite to support Israel during trip
L.A. rabbis in Israel seek to model tolerance
The Unity Trip
US rabbis mission supports foreign workers’ children
18 Rabbis get on a plane to Israel…

0 Comments — Leave your comment

November 4, 2009 | 11:21 am

Blessed Be The Stupid, For They Shall Give The Life Savings Of Others To Charity And Be Praised

Posted by Jack Weiss

Brad Greenberg has posted that fifty Israeli non-profits banded together recently to honor Stanley Chais for his years of charitable giving.  The God Blog

I am a former federal prosecutor.  I believe that the presumption of innocence applies to Stanley Chais.  I also believe that, with exceptions, charities that received contributions from Chais over the years are generally blameless.

But let’s be clear about this situation:

—Bernard Madoff has confessed that his multizillion dollar financial empire was a Ponzi scheme built on the backs of thousands of victims. 

—Madoff’s scheme immensely enriched a certain group of people along the way.

—Stanley Chais was in that group.

—The question with respect to Chais is, did he know Madoff was dirty?

—Chais’ attorney has claimed that Chais lacked knowledge of Madoff’s wrongdoing—in essence, is that he was duped, too. Beverly Hills money manager Stanley Chais accused of fraud

—Madoff has told investigators that uncovering his Ponzi scheme would have been easy.

Chais solicited investors for Madoff’s funds, and had a duty to those investors to understand and explain the investments—a duty to know what he was talking about.  Chais’ defense in essence is that he did not know what he was talking about.

So how can a charity now honor Stanley Chais?

A criminal Chais—a Chais with knowledge—is a thief who gave away other people’s money.

A stupid Chais—a Chais who entrusted people’s life savings to Madoff without knowing what he was talking about—is someone who failed those who placed their trust in him.  Because of this failure, those investors are now ruined.

I understand that Stanley Chais may yet be exonerated. 

I understand that the charities who received his contributions can’t be expected to judge him.

But one would expect them to feel a little, well, chaistened.

And, perhaps, to seek out the victims whose life savings are now paying for their programs and ask their forgiveness, rather than to seek out Chais and honor him for giving away other people’s money.

7 Comments — Leave your comment

November 2, 2009 | 2:40 pm

Don’t Cry For Me, Donald Sterling

Posted by Jack Weiss

The Los Angeles Clippers proved the other night that the traditional model of non-governmental America-Israel engagement is dead.

I’m not saying that the Clippers killed the model—let’s face it, the Clippers don’t kill anything.

I’m not saying that the model was killed—it had already died of old age.

And I’m not saying that its passing was a bad thing.  Instead, its demise demonstrates a new world of possibilities for Americans and Israelis who want to engage with one another.

Meanwhile, a new model is rising in Santa Monica and the Silicon Wadi.

First, let’s talk hoops.

Like many around town, I couldn’t help but notice the ads in the L.A. Times and the Jewish Journal promoting the recent Clippers game against Maccabi Electra Tel Aviv.  The event was a benefit for Migdal Ohr, an extraordinary orphanage in Israel run by Rabbi Yitzchak Dovid Grossman (this article is not a critique of Migdal Ohr or of the need to support such worthy institutions; Dan Adler and other Angelenos can tell you more about this amazing rabbi and what he has accomplished).

The local ads featured stock images of helpless children. There was nothing subtle about the ad copy either, directly thanking supporters on behalf of thousands of Israeli orphans.

The mood of the fans at the Staples Center last Tuesday night, though, was not one of pity but of pride.  At every Maccabi basket the crowd roared; the Clippers rated only occasional golf course applause.  Midway through the first quarter, I turned to my friend Joe Freeman and said, “The Clippers are playing an away game tonight.”

The arena was filled with every kind of Jew—Israelis, frum families, and secular Americans.  All came for one reason—pride in the State of Israel.  It wasn’t disappointing that our ticket dollars went to a worthy Israeli charity, but let’s be honest—the message that Israel is the land of our weak, vulnerable cousins did not drive turnout.  The crowd was united in its view that Israel is strong.  An orphanage as vibrant as Migdal Ohr, I would argue, is a sign of a country’s strength and sophistication.

The pride we feel for Israel is neither false nor undue.  Its renewed vitality is chronicled in Dan Senor and Saul Singer’s new book, “Startup Nation—The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle.”  They explain that Israel has become the world model for innovation—“there is a reason why so many (American) companies have come to Israel looking for the innovations they need to compete in today’s global economy.  As America tries to reboot, Israel is the place to look for how to build a comprehensive culture of innovation that can restore and sustain economic growth.”

Indeed, Senor and Singer’s book prompted Rabbi Shmuley Boteach to write in the Jerusalem Post, “it is time for Israel to consider forgoing American economic aid. I understand the military aid . . . But the economic aid creates an unnecessary dependency, (and) undermines the perception of Israel as a prosperous country.”

At the same time, it is important to recognize the value-areas that America can bring to the table with Israel.  One of the best current examples is percolating at the RAND Corporation, where funding from the Nazarian Family Foundation is providing America’s premier nonpartisan think tank with opportunities to consult directly to the Israeli government and suggest policy alternatives that may not have received the attention they warrant from a bureaucracy whose political leaders shift every few years.  The first RAND effort calibrates the recommended level of Israel’s future dependence on natural gas.  The next project is likely to be a uniquely American review of the Israeli Police, and perhaps of the justice system, too.

As RAND researcher Steven Popper made clear at a recent presentation on the natural gas project, Israel’s policy options are less constrained by resources than by the lack of stable institutions, again an area in which America can offer instruction.

That’s what the real future of the non-governmental America-Israel relationship looks like.  Israel has spark and ingenuity and inventiveness and can teach us how to innovate and adapt rapidly.  American research organizations such as RAND and the Milken Institute can teach Israel how to analyze policy through a longer lens and mold more stable domestic institutions.

There’s a lot we can teach each other—through partnership with and investment in the best each other has to offer.

By the way, the Clippers won the game the other night, and it wasn’t even close.  I’m not sure Maccabi Tel Aviv wants your sympathy.  Clipper fans, however—well, that’s another story.

(Updated 11-4-09—While Sterling and his counsel have “vehemently” denied the charges, yesterday he reached a record multimillion dollar settlement with the federal government in a case in which he was accused of racially discriminating against renters.  The case serves as a reminder that racial prejudice is alive and well in our City in the 21st Century. Sterlings will pay $2.7 million to settle rental bias suit—latimes.com)

0 Comments — Leave your comment

October 28, 2009 | 9:25 pm

Memo to Chief Bartow

Posted by Jack Weiss

The Police Commission and the Mayor are reaching out as they consider possible finalists to succeed LAPD Chief Bill Bratton.  One person who should be on their call list but isn’t is Gene Bartow.

Bartow was a rising star in the collegiate basketball coaching ranks when he got the call in 1975 from J.D. Morgan to replace John Wooden at UCLA.

A look at the stats tells one story about Gene Bartow and the Bruins.  A record of 52-9 over two years.  Two consecutive conference titles.  A trip to the Final Four.

A look at the community’s response to Bartow—and Bartow’s subsequent reaction—tells a different story.  Hate mail on the Saturday sports page.  Alumni and player dissatisfaction.  Paranoia about physical threats (really).

As one of his former players said, ““A lot of people were ready to eat Bartow’s lunch. People had escaped reality at Pauley Pavilion for . . . years and when Bartow came in and let them down, it was a big letdown because the fans had a fickle, fake perception of reality.”

After only two years, Bartow fled Westwood.

Following Bill Bratton could be a lot like following John Wooden.  L.A. has gone without a major police scandal for several years and has seen steady, steep declines in crime under Bratton.  Sharp knives await any new Chief’s first, inevitable misstep.

Asking anyone to follow Wooden or Bratton may be an impossible task in the short-run, even though the leading contenders are experienced, well-versed in crime-fighting, and sensitive to issues of diverse communities.  So here are some tips for the next Chief that will serve him or her, and the City, in the long run:

Continue Bratton’s reforms and policies. In any transition at a public office, there is an understandable desire to institute change and impose one’s own stamp and style on the position.  Bratton certainly did that when he took over the LAPD seven years ago, just as Bernard Parks and Willie Williams had done before.  But Bratton’s policies and reforms have been working.  The new Chief needs to state clearly that he or she will implement Bratton’s initiatives, and immediately go on a broad tour of the City to assure the community of continuity, rather than change.  Express your individuality through your personality, not your policies.

Make hiring new cops a public priority. There has been a heated political battle over the past months about whether the City can afford to continue hiring new cops.  Of course City budget dollars are getting tighter, but the hiring of new cops has been the sine qua non of the department’s recent successes.  There will be political pressure on the new Chief immediately to back off.  Don’t—and announce this right away.  Being coy about the Department’s top issue will only lead to an erosion of your effectiveness and ultimately make the City less safe.

Put cops on the dots—not on the fifteenths.  The dirty little secret of L.A. politics has always been the more or less equal division of City resources into the fifteen Council districts despite the unequal division of needs.  I supported Chief Bratton when he moved cops out of my district and into higher-crime areas; the new Chief will find few, if any, Councilmembers receptive to this approach.  Make future deployment decisions on the basis of need and data only—not political pressure.  Explain to the public that fighting crime where it happens is essential to preventing its spread to lower-crime areas.  And if the public and the Council object, do it anyway.

Stand by programs that don’t have political support.  Bratton made homeland security a new priority, and the department’s current counterterror leaders, Deputy Chief Mike Downing and Commander Joan McNamara, are setting the national standard for local homeland security initiatives.  As unpopular as these important efforts have been, they are only bound to grow in unpopularity in the future.  Councilmembers will eye the 300 or so cops assigned to homeland security and seek their transfer to more immediate community functions.  Let me be direct—the new Chief needs to plan for an attack on Los Angeles during his or her tenure.  The new Chief can also explain that counterterror resources are useful in combating the spread of other sophisticated criminal enterprises such as the MS-13 gang.  A Chief who cuts corners on homeland security is not worthy of our trust.

Invest in technology—even when it forces hard choices.  DNA testing.  Video cameras in police cars.  Functional and interoperable communications equipment.  Technology is the law enforcement force multiplier of the future, but it lacks a constituency.  All the contenders for Chief profess to be in favor of these initiatives, but when push comes to shove, who will be willing to shift resources to needed new technologies?

Develop a close bond with the Inspector General.  It is an open secret in L.A. that current Inspector General Andre Birotte is likely soon to be moving on to a new post, which means that for the first time we will have a transition at Chief and I.G. simultaneously.  Bratton’s approach to the Department’s civilian watchdog was unusual—he was completely open to the office, even when it criticized him.  Sheriff Lee Baca has been similarly open to Mike Gennaco’s Office of Independent Review despite its frequent censure of that department.  Openness, though, is not mandated by law—so the new Chief will have to choose this type of relationship with the I.G.

Anticipate your first scandal.  Bad things happen to good police departments.  Assume that the next controversy will happen within your first year.  Deal with it when it happens by getting the facts out immediately and dispensing discipline rapidly up and down the chain of command.  There’s a reason everyone remembers Rampart and few remember MacArthur Park—one scandal was stonewalled and the other was transparent.

If there is a common thread that runs through these recommendations, it is that each will be unpopular with an important constituency.  That’s okay—the new Chief is fortunate to take office under a Police Commission that has consistently backed the department’s leadership when it has come under political attack.

Still, there will inevitably be times when the new Chief will feel like Gene Bartow and believe that the stats don’t justify the condemnation.  All I ask is that the new Chief earn his or her hate mail by making tough calls for public safety, not political popularity.

0 Comments — Leave your comment