Weekly Update 52

September 5, 2025

Hello, everyone.

At this week’s council meeting on Tuesday, several important issues were discussed. To keep this brief and avoid overwhelming you, I will provide an update this week on some of the topics and cover the remaining ones in next week’s newsletter.

Summary:

• First topic: The Keshet School will be built on land expropriated from Zichrona, located across from the Moshava High School. The council will establish a kindergarten and an elementary school (grades 1–8). The council cannot also build the Keshet high school because it belongs to a private association. These details were only “revealed” to council members following a question I asked. The council head did not think to update the council members at an important meeting he held that led to this decision.
• Second issue: Consolidating future construction on the Country Club parking lot to create a multipurpose facility for seniors, including a memorial hall and a new auditorium. Everything will be built on a 9-dunam plot where the dirt parking lot adjacent to the Country Club currently stands.
• Third issue: How the council head is doing everything he can to avoid answering my inquiry regarding the Zamarin Community Center. Although the law requires him to respond to ensure transparency and so the public may hear and read the answers—he and the council’s legal advisor found an “excuse” not to answer during the meeting, claiming he does not have the information, which is held only by the CEO, and that she will respond to me privately via email. Where is the transparency? Why aren’t the answers included in the minutes? What are they afraid of in these questions? See the attached inquiries.

First issue: Construction of the Keshet School

At the meeting, we were asked to increase the amount we had already approved for the planning of the new Keshet School, which is intended to be located in the Zichrona area (land has been expropriated) across from the Moshava High School. Only after I asked a question and insisted on knowing the terms of the arrangement for establishing the school with a private nonprofit organization— the council head “remembered” to report to us that the construction of the Keshet School would include only a kindergarten and an elementary school (grades 1–8). According to him, the kindergarten, which currently operates under a private nonprofit organization, will join the education system as a full-fledged kindergarten. And in fact, the council will not build the high school (grades 9–12).

In response to my question, the council head “remembered” to mention that two weeks ago, he and the legal advisor held a meeting with representatives of the Keshet Association. This is a private nonprofit organization, and by law, the council cannot build a high school for a private nonprofit. The kindergarten and elementary school will belong to the council, not the nonprofit, so the council can build them. At that meeting, it was agreed that the council would reserve 3 dunams on the site for the association’s future construction of the high school—if and when it wins the land allocation, since other associations can also bid for this land. And, of course, it must secure funding for the construction.

I am glad that the council head is acting in accordance with the law and is not building a school for a private nonprofit organization, but only what will belong to the council. However, the lack of transparency is unclear because in previous meetings, when we approved the establishment of the school, we were explicitly told that 12 classrooms—two per grade—would be built.

It is unacceptable for a council head to view the council as a superfluous body that merely approves funds for him, when he himself is not obligated to provide us with regular updates. See the third issue, which relates precisely to a lack of transparency and an infringement on the democratic process!

Second issue: Consolidating future construction on the Country Club parking lot to create a multipurpose facility for seniors, including a memorial hall and a new auditorium

The dirt lot adjacent to the Country Club, currently used for parking, covers an area of 9 dunams owned by the council and designated for public buildings. This is the largest plot currently owned by the council.

I have previously reported here on the plan to build a multipurpose center for seniors on this site. A facility that will serve the 4,000 retirees currently living in Zichron Yaakov. It will include a therapeutic pool, rehabilitation services, cultural and recreational activities, and more.

At the last meeting, we learned that a memorial hall for the 107 fallen soldiers of the settlement will also be built on this site, along with a new auditorium that will be larger than Beit Nir (at least 450 seats)—so that it can host performances that currently cannot fit on the small stage of Beit Nir, which belongs to the Yad LaTothan Association. An underground parking garage is planned for the site, which will be very expensive.

First problem: Where will the money for all these buildings come from?

It is important for me to note that at this stage, we have only been asked to approve funding for the planners, and the council has not yet held any substantive discussion regarding whether it can afford the costs of all these structures. It was merely stated that this is a preliminary plan, and when the final plan comes up for council approval, we will discuss the amounts. And that is assuming we are provided with the actual information regarding the costs. Already at this meeting, the council head “threw out” the idea that the National Insurance Institute would provide funding for the construction of the multipurpose building for seniors. But he didn’t say—and I checked and found—that the estimated construction cost is about 30 million NIS, whereas the National Insurance Institute has budgeted 3 million NIS—where will the difference come from??

I am very concerned about where the money for all this construction will come from. The council head promised there are donors and that they will apply to foundations. But from the bitter experience of his previous term—we all know that in the end, we all paid the price for the excessively large Moshava Park. The deficit the council fell into has prevented many infrastructure projects for years—roads and sidewalks were neglected because there was no money.

Are we witnessing exactly the same thing—megalomaniacal construction at the expense of our current budget? This is a warning because the coalition is united and determined to approve everything. The opposition is in the minority.

Second problem: traffic congestion and gridlock. Dr. Avigayil Dolev from my party mentioned—and I’ve also written about this here—that there are already serious traffic problems and gridlock in this area, which includes a school, an agricultural farm, a country club, a community center, a youth movement, and the Artilleryman’s House. And now hundreds more vehicles will be added for the three new buildings.

The council engineer explained that the plan also includes a transportation plan that will attempt to provide additional entrances, exits, and parking spaces for this complex, in addition to the existing Aharon Road. We’ll wait and see.

Third issue: How a council head goes to great lengths to avoid answering a council member’s questions and undermine transparency and democracy in the community

Even at this current meeting, the council head was forced to respond to two inquiries I submitted. The inquiries are attached. Inquiries are a legal tool that a council member must use to receive answers. It is a cumbersome tool because I am only answered at the meeting following the submission of the inquiry. The possibility of receiving immediate answers to my questions—as a council member—has been blocked solely for me by the council head. As you may recall, he announced at a council meeting a few months ago that only I would not be answered. Everyone else receives answers (it’s unclear to me who asks what, as there is no transparency), but I am not answered “because I am a bad woman.” And, gravely, the department heads and gatekeepers—who are not employees of the council head but public servants—are complying with this tyrannical decision.

My first inquiry requested information regarding the Zamarin Community Center. The council head is the chairman of Zamarin’s board of directors, and one would assume that as chairman, he is actively involved and familiar with the center’s operations, and would be able to answer me or obtain the information and respond.

But here is what he told me at the meeting—after consulting with Attorney Barzilai, the council’s legal advisor—they decided they did not need to answer me because they do not have the information!!! And I must contact the Zamarin director, and she will answer me.

How can the legal advisor allow such a practice—not answering a question during a council meeting—even though there is a legal obligation to do so? The law stipulates that the council chair must respond. So he needs to gather the information and respond. But here is a new way to prevent transparency from the public. Because answering during a meeting is something that goes into the minutes and is visible in the recording. And it is open to the entire public.

And receiving a response only to me via email—that’s something only I see.

In summary, this is yet another case of a lack of transparency, a lack of accountability to the public, and zero democracy. And all of this was approved by the council’s legal advisor.

The second inquiry concerned a specific budget item that seemed to me to be unusual and unduly favorable to a specific nonprofit organization, and I asked whether funds had been disbursed under it. The item allocated 120,000 NIS in support solely to the Maccabi Sports Association for two sports—soccer and basketball—(despite the fact that these sports already received allocations under a support item approved by the plenary session and determined according to equitable criteria).

I asked what the purpose of this illegal clause was, why funds were being allocated outside the standard criteria-based distribution, and whether there was a possibility that this organization would receive funding twice.

The council head replied that no funds were allocated under this clause to any sports association.

I will continue to monitor the budget to ensure that this clause, which I believe is illegal, is not used by the end of the year. Subsidies are a welcome thing for youth movements, sports associations, and other organizations. However, we must adhere to the requirements of the law and procedures, and distribute funding strictly according to the criteria. According to these criteria, funding is granted only based on equitable criteria approved by the full council. This is the only way. The council chair cannot distribute funding to an organization through the budget as he pleases, thereby bypassing the entire mechanism of the funding committee.