Weekly Update 59

October 31, 2025

Hello, everyone.

Two topics in this week’s newsletter:

First topic: I won (and in fact, we who advocate for good governance and the rule of law have won) the petition I filed against the council head and the council. This is a bittersweet victory because there would have been no need to file the petition had the council head acted in accordance with the law and responded to my inquiry on the matter back in August—and, above all, complied with the law regarding prohibited publications!!

Following the acceptance of the petition, I am once again calling on the coalition members to demand that the mayor and the department heads under his authority immediately cease the boycott imposed on me by the mayor.

Coalition members must demand that the mayor comply with the law, respond to my requests, and allow me to review all information.

I have also posted about this on the Open Forum—it is important that you visit, comment, and share this with the public.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1STdtCzTxC/

Second topic: Attached is the agenda for the council meeting this coming Tuesday. As usual, I have submitted two inquiries, hoping that this time the council chairman will provide truthful answers (and responses that go beyond simple yes/no answers). There are also project approvals that you may have questions about and would like me to address at the meeting. Please contact me privately.

First topic: I won the petition I filed against the council chair and the council

I am very happy that I won the petition, but I am angry that I had to file it simply because the council chairman and the council’s legal advisor, Attorney Yossi Barzilai, do not respond to my inquiries. No response—even though the law requires them to. The council head has declared a boycott against me. I updated you here about the meeting where he said without hesitation in front of the cameras, “I’ve instructed the council staff not to respond to you. Don’t bother writing because you won’t get any answers.”

And the department heads—they’re following orders. In other words, they’re not responding and are ignoring me.

The District Court judge, sitting as chair of the District Election Committee, accepted the petition and ruled that a series of publications included in the petition violate the law because they unlawfully link the council’s activities to its head, amounting to prohibited propaganda and blatant exploitation of the authority’s resources for personal advancement. The judge also ordered the council and the council head to pay me and the association—which also filed the petition—our legal costs.

The judge rejected every argument made by the council and the council head, who attempted to claim that this was political persecution on my part, or that the systematic violation stemmed from a desire to save public funds, which is why the public relations department was disbanded. The brief ruling states that there was a violation of the law.

What spared the council head and the council from a more severe sanction was the fact that after the petition was filed—and even before the decision was issued—all the prohibited publications were removed. This was revealed only in the response to the petition and not in response to my inquiry, which would have prevented the petition and the expenditure of public funds on legal fees and court costs.

Attached is also an article published this week in The Marker regarding this important decision (by Tali Haruti-Sover).

What is important to know—and does not appear explicitly in the decision or in the article—is the simple fact and the timeline leading up to the filing of the petition:

As early as August 18, 2025, I first wrote to the Council Chair and the Legal Advisor, with copies to the Council Treasurer, the Engineer, the Secretary, the Council Auditor, the Human Resources Manager, and the Archive Manager who uploads the Council’s publications— precisely regarding these claims and with a simple request to remove the posts and begin acting in accordance with the law (I attached all the examples to them).

It is important to emphasize here that in 2022, the council’s legal advisor sent a letter on precisely this subject to elected officials and department heads regarding the prohibition on the use and publication of the authority’s social media by the head of the authority, referring to the election period and the period between elections, with an emphasis that the authority’s resources are not for the private use of the head of the authority. We attached this letter to the petition to demonstrate that the provisions of the law are clear even to the legal advisor.

Puzzlingly, in its response to the petition, the Council argued regarding the legal advisor’s letter that “this is not a legal opinion, and the letter does not constitute guidance for the Council, but rather a review of two decisions issued under specific circumstances—which are not relevant to the subject matter of the petition.”

It is true that the Council’s response was drafted by the external law firm it had hired. But I believe that Legal Advisor Barzilai did his job and reviewed the response. Therefore, it is puzzling how he agreed to such a preposterous claim. Attached is the Legal Advisor’s letter; you can see for yourselves. So the law was clear and known to the Legal Advisor, yet he chose to ignore all my inquiries and allow the systematic violation of the law.

However, this appeal, like all my other appeals on various other issues, received no response. Even repeated appeals, including the physical delivery of the letter to the mayor’s office and the legal advisor’s office on August 31, 2025, received no response.

In the absence of a response, the petition was filed. The council then hired an external law firm to file a response to the petition. This was an unnecessary legal proceeding that cost the community’s residents money. Because the council head and the council had already rushed to remove the prohibited publications even before the decision was issued. In other words, they knew these were illegal publications and yet spent public funds on an unnecessary legal proceeding. Worse still, they failed to act as early as August 18, when I first contacted them.

I am angry because as early as August 18, in response to my first inquiry, the legal advisor/head of the council was obligated to reply briefly: “Thank you for your inquiry; the publications have been removed, and we will ensure compliance with the law from now on.”

They also ignored letters from the association on the same subject.

Had they responded and addressed the issue, it would have spared me and the association the need to file the petition, and above all, saved residents money, since the council hired an outside law firm to represent it using our funds. It’s all completely unnecessary. All that’s needed is to address my requests and comply with the law!!!

I am also angry at all the coalition members who are backing the council head’s boycott against me. Not a single one of them has stood up and said: “According to the law, council members’ requests must be answered. By law, the council must allow a council member to review the documents she requests within three days.” Some of them even attack me in meetings and in nasty emails where they accuse me of flooding the system with frivolous requests… It’s unbelievable.

Upon the publication of the decision, I sent it to all council members and the council administration. At the end of the email, I addressed the coalition members:

“I expect all coalition members to stop attacking me, as the honorable judge’s decision speaks for itself—and instead direct their complaints to the council chair, who continues to boycott me and refuses to respond to my requests. There are currently several more requests I’ve submitted since August 18 that have gone unanswered.

Coalition members must demand that the council chair respect the law, respond to my inquiries, and allow me to review any document I request. The victory in the petition shows you that I am not “just a nuisance” with my inquiries. I am doing my job—and the council head must respect the law and respond to all my inquiries, which are buried deep within his office due to the boycott he has imposed on my requests.

The association and I are determined to continue filing petitions in every case where my requests are not answered as required by law. Therefore, if coalition members care about the rule of law, good governance, and public funds—ensure that I receive a consistent response to all my requests.

This decision represents an important victory for me in my uncompromising struggle for the rule of law. I will not accept a situation where the council head and the council under his authority blatantly violate the law. This has happened in the area of publications, and it is happening in other areas about which I am reporting to you.”

This is an opportunity to thank the Association of Lawyers for the Promotion of Good Governance, which filed the petition with me and assists me in many ways.

The council head was personally ordered to pay us costs of 2,000 NIS, and the council itself was also ordered to pay the same amount. I will, of course, donate what I receive to the association. This is a ridiculous sum that does not cover my expenses or those of the association in filing the petition. It is a ridiculous sum that offers no deterrent for the future.

But thanks to the petition, Abutbul’s systematic publications that violated the law have ceased for now. The association and I continue to monitor the publications and will not hesitate to file further petitions.

I need your help: Please comment on the post I uploaded on this topic—only your pressure will lead to the lifting of the boycott against me.

Only your pressure will compel the council head and his coalition to respond to my inquiries and provide me with information.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1STdtCzTxC/

Attached to this email: the letter sent to the council on 8/18/25 detailing the publications; a letter from Legal Advisor Barzilai from 2022; the judge’s decision dated 10/28/25; and the article in The Marker.

Second topic: Council meeting this coming Tuesday, November 4

I am attaching to this email the agenda for the regular meeting to be held this coming Tuesday. If you have any questions you would like me to clarify, please message me privately.

As you will see, once again I am the only council member submitting inquiries to the council chair. These concern two very important issues regarding which, despite my requests, they refuse to provide me with information that is required by law. In the next newsletter, I will update you on the responses I receive. Hopefully, this time the council chair will provide truthful answers without evasion.

The meeting is open to the public—and you can come to the council building and go up to the meeting room.

Please note that this time the meeting is scheduled for 7:00 PM.