Weekly Update 17

December 20, 2024

Hello, everyone.

Everyone knows that mayors change with elections and that each has a different approach and different goals. What is supposed to remain stable and unchanged are the decisions made by the professional staff working at the municipality. Decisions dictated by law, not by the identity of the mayor currently in office.

But in Zichron Yaakov, there is an interesting phenomenon—the responses from the professional staff do change depending on who the mayor is. Responses given to questions in various fields during the previous term as part of plenary sessions are suddenly reversed or replaced with evasions. This raises the question: Why, and how can residents trust that the professional staff will fulfill their role, in which they owe their duty of trust to the public and not to the council head?

In two separate instances, the council’s legal advisor—Attorney Yossi Barzilai—was asked during plenary sessions to provide his legal opinion on whether the requested use of municipal funds for a specific action was lawful—and the legal advisor chose to respond evasively, contrary to his obligation to provide a legal answer. Whereas in the previous term, as evidenced by the minutes from that time, that same legal advisor had no problem determining what was lawful and providing clear and unambiguous answers.

It is the Legal Advisor’s duty to provide a clear answer where one exists. And if he believes he does not have an unequivocal answer and has doubts regarding the legality of the action, he must at the very least request that the discussion be postponed to a subsequent session or note in the minutes that the execution of the action is contingent upon his review of its legality, so that he may thoroughly examine the matter and provide a reasoned and binding response.

First Incident:

The first instance in which the Legal Advisor evaded providing an answer occurred during the session on October 8, 2024. The issue concerned the funding of resurfacing existing roads and installing underground trash bins from the extraordinary budget (Tav-R), which consists of development funds in accordance with the Paving Bylaw. However, the bylaw and the Ministry of the Interior’s guidelines stipulate that funds from this fund are intended solely for the development and paving of new roads, sidewalks, etc. It may sound like a small difference, but this is what proper administration looks like—taking money only from the permitted budget and not from wherever the council head wants. Therefore, I asked the Legal Advisor: Is it possible to approve the expenditure (for road paving and the installation of underground trash bins) from the Special Budget/this fund? Attached is a relevant excerpt from the meeting minutes and the vague response given by the Legal Advisor.

To the question I asked, the legal advisor should have given a simple answer: “No, it is not possible; this is contrary to the bylaw and the Ministry of the Interior’s guidelines.” But he evaded the question, gave a vague answer, and deferred the response to the Haifa District—a response he is required and obligated to provide. Following his evasive response, the plenary approved what it was ostensibly not permitted to approve.

The second case, which illustrates the Legal Advisor’s modus operandi, occurred at the council meeting on December 3, 2024, when a request for plenary approval was brought before us, asking us to approve a special budget (an extraordinary budget, meaning funds derived from development funds rather than the current annual budget)—to finance a security assessment aimed at opposing the construction of a gas storage facility near the community (a facility planned under TAMA 75 to be built in the abandoned quarry at Ein Ayala, near Pardes). The plenary session was asked to approve the funding for the security assessment via the extraordinary budget during the meeting. See minute 1:58 in the recording, where I asked the legal advisor, “Let’s ask the legal advisor for a moment—can this be done through the extraordinary budget?”

And see the legal advisor’s response: “If the Ministry of the Interior approves it, then yes.”

This response from the legal advisor does not appear in the minutes of that meeting, even though I requested that it be included—the legal advisor apparently refused to have it included in the minutes (!!). I remind you that it is the minutes that are sent to the Ministry of the Interior, which oversees the local authority, not the recording of the meeting. In the minutes, you will find the response from the council head, who was quick to assert that there is no problem with funding through the reserve fund, and that this is exactly what he did during his previous term. We know that many actions taken during his previous terms were improper and caused financial difficulties for the community. But I asked the legal advisor, and there’s a reason I asked him—because it’s his job to provide professional, factual answers. And this isn’t the first time the council head has answered in place of the professional staff, thereby “taking the fall for them” so they wouldn’t have to, God forbid, tell the truth.

Let’s return to the legal advisor’s response, which can be heard in the recording: “If the Ministry of the Interior approves, then yes.” What kind of answer is this that defers the decision to the district director? Why is the legal advisor sitting in the council meeting if he is unable to provide a simple answer—whether this action can be approved from the capital budget or, alternatively, approved only from the operating budget? Let’s just defer everything to the district for them to decide. Incidentally, the district is very busy and doesn’t always know how to pay attention and stop problematic actions by the council. The previous term of Abutbul is proof of this, as the district failed to prevent many problems.

And what would you say about another key professional in the council administration—Treasurer Mr. Avi Hossman—who is repeating the exact same response he gave during the current term regarding this very issue. Strange.

At that same meeting on 12/3/2024, during the section dealing with funding for the security assessment. I also turned to the treasurer and asked him the same simple question: Can this expense be funded from the capital budget? To my surprise, the treasurer, too, suddenly forgot his unequivocal answer on exactly the same issue during the previous term. And, of course, this part does not appear in the minutes of the current meeting either.

During the previous term, at the plenary session on March 14, 2023, this issue was raised on the agenda, with a request to support the campaign and approve funding for that security assessment. The council plenary at that time did not approve the request.

At the time of that discussion, Treasurer Avi Hosman responded with the following remarks, which were indeed included in the minutes from that session:

In other words, the council treasurer in the previous term determined regarding that exact expenditure that it could not be funded from the reserve fund but only from the current budget. But in the current term, he suddenly gives the opposite answer—and asks the council members to approve the reserve fund. In other words, he is ostensibly preventing us from approving an action that he himself considered, a year and a half ago, to be illegal in terms of the authority’s expenditure.

I want to emphasize that I am in favor of funding the aforementioned security assessment, as no one wants a fuel storage facility near Zichron Yaakov, but there is only one legal way to fund it—a method the treasurer is well aware of.

During Ziv Deshe’s term in the gas struggle from 2018 to 2021—when the professional team explicitly stated that the reserve fund could not be used for this action—budget items were therefore incorporated into the annual operating budget during those years to provide the necessary funding for these operations. This is how one acts in accordance with the law and for the public good.

I am not willing to sit quietly as a council member while I see the professional staff, who are supposed to protect the public interest, deviating from their duties. If we, as council members, do not demand that the professional staff fulfill their duties—then what are we doing on the council? This is exactly how the slippery slope of disregarding the law begins. Therefore, I fulfilled my duty as someone committed solely to the residents’ welfare and sent a letter this week to the Haifa District Office, specifically to those at the Ministry of the Interior who are supposed to oversee our municipality’s work (this newsletter is based on the letter I sent). I asked them emphatically—

It is your duty to oversee the work of the council and its administration, and therefore I am bringing these cases to your attention so that you may intervene as follows:

1. Prevent and stop the Council from making improper and illegal use of development fund monies for ongoing operations, and require the Council administration to present a legal source of funding—namely, the current budget—by amending the 2024 budget or incorporating it into the 2025 budget.

2. Remind the Legal Advisor that he must not shirk the professional responsibility placed upon him and must provide a professional response, either verbally or, if necessary, in a written opinion, regarding the items on the plenary session’s agenda. If the Legal Advisor refers everything to the district, raising the question of why a Legal Advisor is needed at meetings, we will respectfully invite the district representative to attend plenary sessions and provide answers in place of the Legal Advisor who is shirking his duties.

I await their response and, above all, that they do their job and enable the professionals on our council to function.

And we’ll end on a happy note—the Zamarin Community Center, the Gedonim Association, and the local council are continuing the wonderful tradition from years past and have prepared a variety of activities for Hanukkah for all ages. You’re invited to follow the various announcements and come join us.