Weekly Update 24

February 7, 2025

Hello, everyone.

Summary:

• The rule of law is not being upheld in our community. The gatekeepers are not fulfilling their duties, and oversight of them by the Ministry of the Interior is not functioning.
• This week, I contacted the Attorney General to request action to rectify the illegality regarding the registration of the Ohel Yaakov Synagogue Association at the synagogue’s address. This is a prohibited action that someone on the council apparently authorized, and it must now be revoked.
• I sent another email this week to the officials in charge of our authority at the Ministry of the Interior, as they have been stalling me with vague responses and, in my estimation, are not actually reviewing the issues I’ve brought to their attention.
• To my understanding, a two-member party that ostensibly belongs to the opposition has been working for quite some time with the council head and the coalition. And soon we will likely hear about an official alliance. Who switched sides? And how does this greatly affect you—read about it in the latest post.

The rule of law means the supremacy of the law.

The law is the authority that dictates what is permitted and what is prohibited.

How do we know what the law stipulates regarding the conduct of a local authority? Precisely for this issue, which lies at the heart of democratic life, every authority appoints a legal advisor. In large municipalities, there is an entire department comprising several lawyers. They all serve as gatekeepers for the public good—ensuring that the head of the authority and its employees act in accordance with the law, the guidelines of the Director General’s circulars, and the rules of proper administration, rather than according to their own interests or those of their associates.

But what happens in a municipality where the legal advisor does not strictly provide advice or legal opinions in accordance with the law, but rather according to the mayor’s wishes? What happens in a municipality where the legal advisor attends council meetings but remains “silent” instead of correcting the mayor and saying, “That is incorrect; you cannot do that,” and also responding promptly and accurately to questions from elected officials?

Those who follow my newsletters have already read plenty of examples.

Here is another example related to the event hall that Shabutbol is planning and initiating to build on the public open space adjacent to the “Ohel Yaakov” synagogue in the center of the town.

I will note that the synagogue is owned by the council. The synagogue has never been allocated to any association. And it is a national heritage site. In my investigations regarding this plan, it emerged that last August, the “Ohel Yaakov Synagogue Association” was “suddenly” established. The association registered its address as the synagogue’s address—16 HaNadiav Street. This is an illegal act. Just as I cannot register my address at any of your properties, so too can the association not register its address at a property that does not belong to it, especially when it comes to public property. Unless someone on the council permitted this and even declared it to the Registrar of Associations.

I asked this question at the meeting regarding the event hall. I received no response. Two days after the meeting, I wrote to the Allocations Committee, of which the legal advisor is a member and to whom I copied the email—he did not reply. Only the council head provided a response that did not address the illegality of the address. They are evading the issue

At the council meeting last Tuesday, Council Member Yigal Hakar, a member of the New Contract party, asked the council head: How is it possible that the association’s address is the synagogue’s address? The council chairman gave the correct answer (a pleasant surprise)—that the association cannot list the address as long as there has been no allocation. And there was no allocation. He went on to say that if Yossi Barzilai (the legal advisor) determines this, they must be notified to change the address.

Hallelujah!!! What was clear and obvious, and which they had avoided answering, was finally addressed. I sent the following email to the Legal Advisor yesterday. Let’s keep our fingers crossed that he will take action and instruct the association to correct this, and most importantly—reveal to me and to you who on the council approved it. Because without approval, this would not have happened.

And here is the text of the email:

To: Attorney Yossi Barzilai, Legal Advisor to the Local Council

Greetings,

The “Ohel Yaakov Synagogue” Association was established and registered with the Registrar of Associations in August 2024.

The association’s registered address is the synagogue’s address (16 HaNativ)

However, this is prohibited by law.

The synagogue was never allocated to the association, so it is not authorized to list its address there. 

At the last council meeting on February 4, 2025, according to the recording of the meeting, after an hour and 14 minutes of discussion (1 hour and 14 minutes), the council chairman stated, “The association cannot list its address as it has done, since there has never been an allocation.”

He went on to say that Yossi would look into it and ensure the correction.

Hence, I am urgently reaching out to you regarding two matters and request an update from you to me or to all members of the plenary  

• Please verify whether any council member authorized the association to register its address at a municipal property? For to the best of my knowledge, the Registrar of Associations, during the registration process, requests verification of the right to register and has done so in the past as well.
• Take immediate action to correct the registration so that the association’s address does not violate the law. 

Needless to say, this is a matter of urgency, as the unlawful registration appears in the association’s documents and on file with the Registrar.

We must adhere to the principle of the rule of law: every governmental body has a supervising body above it, a body that is supposed to verify and correct if the body below it has not acted in accordance with the law.

Above the local authority and its employees is the regulator, the Ministry of the Interior—every authority has a supervisor whose role is to review and approve the authority’s actions in accordance with the Local Authorities Ordinance and the authority’s status.

Sounds wonderful. But what do we do when the Ministry of the Interior, which is supposed to oversee, doesn’t actually oversee? I’ve already given you examples of this. So here’s another example of an email I sent this week to officials at the Ministry of the Interior who not only fail to oversee but also brush me off with vague responses every time I contact them.

Instead of listening to and supporting opposition members—who also serve as an additional gatekeeper—the Ministry of the Interior views us as a nuisance and thus fails in its supervisory role.

The text of the email is as follows:

To: The Head of the Authority at the Ministry of the Interior

Greetings,

I was very disappointed to read your response in the email you sent me on January 29, 2025. Reference number 64137, in which you replied to my detailed letter attached herefrom, dated December 2024, with two laconic lines as follows:

“The special budget allocations approved by the full council are forwarded to the district for approval; we review, among other things, the appropriateness of the budget source for the allocation and provide a response accordingly.”

I know that you review every budget item. This is precisely your duty under the law, and as a public servant, it is incumbent upon you to fulfill this duty.

I asked specifically about several budget requests. Therefore, your general response, which repeats what is already known to everyone, is not a substantive answer to my letter. 

I consulted with a lawyer specializing in municipal law, and he agreed with me that this is an irrelevant response that does not answer any of the questions I raised in my letter.

We both agree that there is grounds here for a petition regarding failure to fulfill duties and possibly also extraneous considerations.

Therefore, I am writing to you again in the hope that this time I will receive a substantive response:

1. What exactly was your decision regarding each of the budget items listed in my letter?

2. Did you approve the budget items listed in my letter? If so, on what grounds? If not, I would also like to know the reasons why approval was not granted.

3. Did you contact the Council’s Legal Advisor, Attorney Barzilai, and clarify to him the nature of his role—to provide legal answers and not to defer everything to the Ministry of the Interior’s decision?

4. Have you contacted the Council Treasurer, Mr. Avi Hosman, and clarified to him the nature of his role—namely, that he cannot change his responses on the exact same issue with every term depending on the identity of the Council Chair?

We are determined!! If I do not receive a substantive response in a timely manner, I will continue to appeal to the next supervisory authority—the Ministry of the Interior’s legal advisor and others.

One final point—to the best of my knowledge and with great responsibility, I am writing that the opposition has dwindled: Tzila Reshef and Tzachi Baruch from the “Zikaron ShebaLev” party are working in close cooperation with the council head and will likely officially join him soon.

For months now, it has been clear at council meetings that the opposition is in the minority and consists of only 6 members: 3 from my party + 3 from the “New Contract” party. The council head is able to pass any resolution he wishes in the council.

It is important for you to understand the situation: the council head has a majority in the council and is doing as he pleases. There is no protection for the public—the gatekeepers in the council are not fulfilling their roles, and the Ministry of the Interior’s oversight is lax and ineffective. At this stage, I do not attribute any ulterior motives to anyone. I am merely pointing out the facts.

That is why I am reaching out to you—if you encounter a problem, if something seems suspicious or troubling to you—get involved, and defend your own interests. Our party will, of course, assist and continue to act vigorously. But our ability is limited in light of what I have written here.

Yours,

Limor Zar-Guttman

The “Lema’an HaMoshava” Party