The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

In our neighborhood: this is how the appointment review committee works - voila! news

2022-07-30T23:18:50.627Z


Please get to know the appointment review committee chaired by Judge Gilaur, who wields enormous power, who discusses appointments in telephone "meetings", who operates in the dark, without rules and without operating theory, and who does what is on her mind. Her conduct in the decision to disqualify the appointment of Prof. Albashan as Director General of the National Insurance is extremely troubling


In our neighborhood: this is how the appointment review committee works

Please get to know the appointment review committee chaired by Judge Gilaur, who wields enormous power, who discusses appointments in telephone "meetings", who operates in the dark, without rules and without operating theory, and who does what is on her mind.

Her conduct in the decision to disqualify the appointment of Prof. Albashan as Director General of the National Insurance is extremely troubling

Kalman Libeskind

30/07/2022

Saturday, July 30, 2022, 8:00 p.m. Updated: 9:25 p.m.

  • Share on Facebook

  • Share on WhatsApp

  • Share on Twitter

  • Share by email

  • Share in general

  • Comments

    Comments

The reading of the decision by Judge Belha Gilaur - the chairman of the committee to review appointments in government companies, and formerly the president of the district court in Haifa - which disqualified Prof. Yuval Albashan Malkhan as CEO of the National Insurance, should shock every literate person.



Even those who are familiar with the neighborhood-haltorist manner, in which things are often conducted with us, will be forced to admit that such conduct by a committee, headed by the president of a district court, who makes fun of any reasonable rule, is something that would not be acceptable, even if it were only a procedure Appointment of a deputy manager of the gardening department in a small local council.



Two preliminary comments.

First, for the sake of full disclosure: Prof. Yuval Albashan is a friend of mine.

The second, that it doesn't really matter that he is my friend, because I have no intention of arguing here that he deserves to run the National Insurance Institute.

I have no understanding of this subject, and I have no pretension to determine who is suitable for this position and who is not.



So why do I think the story of his appointment being disqualified by the Appointments Committee headed by Judge Gilaur is an important story?

Because this story is not Albashan's story.

This story opens a rare and alarming window into the scandalous way in which decisions are made here regarding the most senior appointments, and it teaches once again how much our lives are managed by officials who were not elected by anyone, who are not supervised by anyone, and who have the power to do everything in the world at their whim.

More in Walla!

  • Benny Begin announced that he will not run in the elections: "He will not continue to serve in the Knesset at the age of 80"

  • Neither here nor there: Ayelet Shaked goes to battle for the blocking percentage

  • Yariv Levin: "For a few cigars it was possible to contact the ethics committee"

  • The unique method developed in Israel to solve acne problems - to date over 50 thousand patients have achieved smooth skin and got rid of the wounds!

Prof. Yuval Albashan (Photo: Yehtz)

As far as I myself understand things, the citizens of Israel elected public representatives to run the country for them.

And if these representatives of the public - in this case the current Prime Minister Yair Lapid and Minister of Welfare Meir Cohen - believe that Yuval Albashan is the right candidate to manage the National Insurance, then he is the right candidate for this position.

And this is true, despite the same appointments committee that previously also believed that Amir Peretz, the former Minister of Defense, should not be the chairman of the aviation industry, and Shami Palmore, the former director general of the Ministry of Justice, should not be the chairman of the Electric Company.



Judge Alex Stein distilled the words well, when he rejected the petition of the Movement for the Quality of Government, after the government decided to appoint Amir Peretz contrary to the position of the Appointments Committee.

"At the end of the day, the person who bears public responsibility for the appointment of Mr. Peretz as director of the aerospace industry is the Minister of Defense and not the committee. The success of Mr. Peretz in his position...is the success of the minister, not the committee. The same is true of the failure of Mr. Peretz, who It will be attributed - if Mr. Peretz fails, God forbid, in his position - to the duty of the minister and not to the duty of the committee."

More in Walla!

The appointment review committee rejected the appointment of Yuval Albashan to the director general of the National Insurance

To the full article

Sitting on the phone

But put all this opening aside, because after you read how things work in practice, you will understand for yourself how crazy the owner of the house went, when he left such important decisions in the hands of this appointments committee.



lets start.

Prof. Yuval Albashan was disqualified by the Malkhan Committee as CEO of the National Insurance, after it explained in its decision how significant an institution that deals with critical issues for all of us, that employs thousands of workers, and that rolls tens of billions in benefits. When you read this detail, it is indeed easy to be convinced that the appointment of a CEO For an institution of this kind, it really requires serious consideration.

What else?

It turns out that the appointments committee headed by Judge Gilaur, the one for whom this appointment was so important and significant, did not bother to meet to discuss it.

It turns out that she made the decision to disqualify Albashan in a phone conversation between committee members.

without meeting

without sitting with each other.

without looking each other in the eye.

Crazy as it may sound, this is how decisions are made on senior appointments in Israel.



When I learned about this fact, I turned to Judge Gilaur in shock, to understand how many candidates for appointments she and the members of her distinguished committee discussed in this way, over the phone, that day.

Are you holding tight?

Well, in "about 30 candidacies for the priesthood".

I repeat this so that it is clear that everyone understood.

30 nominations for such and such positions were discussed on the same day in the same phone call.

And I ask, really, have you ever heard of a serious committee that "meets" over the phone to approve appointments?

Have you ever thought that this is how a body that is supposed to supervise that the appointments are accepted properly behaves like this?



further.

Did we talk about the decision making of the "committee members"?

Here is another interesting story.

There were three members of this committee, but on the document of their decision disqualifying Albashan, for some reason, only one was signed.

Judge Belha Gilaur.

And not only do the other two not sign the decision, their names are not even mentioned in it.

Yuval Albashan, who was curious to know who disqualified him, had to write a letter to the committee to demand that they tell him who the people were who discussed his case and determined that he was not suitable.

After all, let's face it, we don't really live in a Sicilian atmosphere of fear, where there is a fear that if the candidate knows who is discussing his case, he will send an elimination squad to him.



Well, after the appeal, the committee decided to reveal to Albashan that the other two members were Prof. Udi Nissan and Attorney Norit Elstein. Albashan looked at these names and it seemed to him that it was not unreasonable to think that one of them had a conflict of interest, when he sat down to discuss his case. If he had known in advance who my members were The committee might have sought to disqualify that member, except that when everything is conducted under a veil of secrecy, and the candidate has no idea who is supposed to make the decision concerning him, he clearly has no ability to make claims of this kind.



Wait, the story is just starting to heat up.

On July 3, the Gilaur Committee published an official announcement, according to which it decided not to approve Albashan's candidacy for the position of Director General of the National Insurance. A day passed, two days passed, and Albashan was unable to achieve the decision. Three days after the announcement, on July 6, he was interviewed With Assaf Lieberman and with me on Network B. "I don't have the decision in my hands yet," he told us, "all I and the Ministry of Welfare have is just the press release that went out, which I even heard about from members of the corporation.

Four lines - that I do not meet the eligibility conditions." This was a surprising claim. "Until now, you have not received any paper or note from the committee explaining what and why it decided?", we asked in amazement. "Not only me," Albashan replied. (The appointing office - K.L.).

Despite requests, there is no more reasoned decision, no more protocols, I don't even know who sat on the committee."



A few hours after this broadcast, the decision was finally sent to the Ministry of Welfare, bearing the date of that day.

I'll repeat it again to make it clear: the decision to disqualify Albashan was written and signed only three days after Judge Gilaur issued an official and orderly press release about it.

Only she signed the decision document disqualifying Albashan.

Bilha Glaor (Photo: official website, the official website of the Judiciary)

Clothing, by the way, was not at all part of the proceedings discussed.

He did not know who was discussing his case, he did not know when his case was being discussed, he was not asked to confront the claims that he was not suitable for the position.

I asked Judge Gilaur this week if it is reasonable for a committee to disqualify a candidate without exchanging a word with him, and without giving him a chance to explain his side.

If the designated Chief of Staff appears before the committee that examines his appointment, why should the designated Director General of the National Insurance not receive this basic right?



This is her answer: "The committee does not invite the candidates whose candidacy is examined by it to appear before it, and all the material it needs is placed before it."

Great, maybe this initiative should also be adopted for the benefit of the judicial system, from which Gilaor came.

After all, why should the parties be summoned and heard on the stand?

There is a lawsuit.

There is a defense letter.

"All the material is placed", as Gilaur says.

Maybe you can be satisfied with that and go straight to writing the verdict.



Albashan, who was considering going to the High Court of Justice, turned to the committee and asked to receive the minutes of its meetings. In response, he was sent a document that the Appointments Committee defines as "minutes", which is nothing but the same decision document signed by Judge Gilaur, word for word. The kind of document that you can say a lot about , but they are not a protocol. Albashan contacted and asked to know more about what was said about him in the telephone meetings that dealt with him, and also asked for the legal opinions that led to his disqualification. The committee refused. "Transcripts of the committee meetings, as well as legal opinions that are forwarded to the review, are internal and are not published or forwarded." , the director of the committee wrote to him.



And here you have to understand something important.

If there were several candidates competing for this position, and one of them would request the material concerning those who ran against him, and the committee would insist on maintaining confidentiality so as not to harm them, it would make sense.

But in this case, the whole discussion was about the clothing itself.

And if there were opinions that determined that he was not worthy or not suitable or not qualified, does it make sense for them to be hidden from him?

Where is such a thing heard?

I turned to the appointments committee and asked to know if, when the telephone hearing in Albashan's case took place, there was a typist on the line who recorded a protocol, and whether this telephone conversation was recorded and transcribed.

The committee, as part of the general transparency concept, refused to answer this question.



But everything you've read so far was just the introduction.

Judge Gilaur, just before she states that "the candidate does not meet the eligibility conditions required to serve as CEO of the National Insurance Institute", goes over his resume, which is relevant to our case, and the administrative background he brings with him: in 1997 he was the founder and director of the legal department in the "Yadid" association for social rights; in 2000 he founded and managed the human rights division at the Academic Center for Law and Business in Ramat Gan; in 2003 he founded and managed the Center for Legal Education for Human Rights and Social Responsibility at the Hebrew University, with a staff of 14 people and a budget of 2 NIS 1 million. From 2007, he served as the chairman of the Foundation for Rehabilitation Enterprises - with 72 rehabilitation centers, sheltered factories and diagnostic and placement institutes across the country, with 550 employees, and with an annual managed budget of NIS 110 million.

At the same time, he served as VP and manager of the network of rights centers of the "Yadid" association



He later served as the Dean of the Faculty of Law at Ono Academic College with 4,500 students, about 200 employees, and an annual managed budget of NIS 113 million.

And today he is the dean of the multicultural campuses in Ono with about 200 employees, and an annual managed budget of NIS 181 million.

We will not go into all the baccalaureate here, because we are not dealing here with the question of whether Albashan is worthy of the position or not, so we will go straight to the point.

4,500 employees and an administrative budget of over NIS 2.2 billion.

National Insurance (Photo: Reuven Castro)

The National Insurance Institute, explains Gilaur, employs 4,500 people and the scope of its administrative budget is NIS 2.2 billion.

In principle, the judge explains, the candidate must previously manage an institution with a scope of activity similar to the one to which he seeks to be appointed, but in cases where it is a question of candidacy for an institution whose scope of activity is enormous, such as the National Insurance, such that there are few who have managed such in the past, "it is customary to also consider experience in a company with A financial scope of 10% of the scope of the corporation to which the candidacy is being examined, as meeting the requirement...".

In other words, the minimum required is for the candidate to manage for 5 years an institution whose budget is 220 million per year (ten percent of the National Insurance Institute's budget).

Whereas Albashan, who managed for five consecutive years an institution with a budget of only 113 million per year, and for a little less than two years an institution with a budget of 181 million, does not meet this threshold criterion.



This decision by Gilaur was strange.

What does it mean that it is "customary" to be content with managing an institution with a budget of ten percent?

Why not 8 percent?

Why not 13 percent?

Where is it "usual"?

by law?

in the ruling?

In the instructions of the legal adviser to the government?

In a tradition passed from generation to generation between the communities of Israel in the diaspora?

After I consulted with several experts on the subject, none of whom were able to say what the source of this custom cited by Gilaur was, I turned to the judge and asked her to point out the source of this custom on which it was based.


Well, you won't believe it.

Not only I did not find a source for this practice.

The judge also did not know how to point to the source of this practice.

And this is a matter that makes the whole nomination process even more delusional.

The minister who is supposed to appoint an official arrives, chooses the man he deems suitable, and then a judge who chairs the appointments committee arrives and explains to him that it is impossible to appoint his candidate because of a "custom" that she does not know who appointed him and based on what.



And one more thing that may seem small to you, but in my eyes it teaches a lot about the conduct of this committee.

A moment after determining that Albashan's managerial experience at the "Yadid" association was irrelevant and did not meet her requirements, Judge Gilaor bothered to publish in her decision document a story about an "anonymous application" that reached the committee, according to which Albashan's work at the "Yadid" association, contrary to what he said in the documents he filled out, was not included managerial aspects.

Gilaur detailed how the committee contacted Albeshan, who explained that this was a false claim and that his role also included "all the management elements".



I asked Gilaor where she got the idea to put on the record, in a decision that will circulate among quite a few sources, such an anonymous application, which defames the name of the candidate and portrays him as the one who presented her with a false document.

"If an anonymous letter were to claim that Prof. Albashan robbed a bank," I asked Gilaur, "even then would you publish the main points of the letter in the decision document, alongside Albashan's denying response?"

This is what the judge answered: "In order to present to the appointing ministers as complete a picture as possible, the committee presents to them in its decision all the relevant material before it, including anonymous requests to the extent they were received, and the response given to them."

And it's pretty amazing.

Because if the judge had the ability or desire to check the correctness of claims that reach her through such anonymous inquiries, she would.

That you check, and if the claims turn out to be true, that you tear up the form.

But if she doesn't have the ability to check things, what interest and benefit is there in sticking this ugly stain?



Just before closing her decision document, Gilaur said that "the members of the committee were impressed by his many social activities, and by the candidate's passion and strong desire for social improvement", and by the fact that "for years, Mr. Albashan has been devoting his energy and time - including academically - to establishing equality and legal aid, especially for disadvantaged populations ".

Making the decision, concludes Gilaur, "was complex."



And this is already a confusing statement.

Why complex?

What is so complex?

After all, you said that your standard states that those who did not manage a budget of 10 percent of the budget of the body that they are intended to manage, cannot be appointed.

Very simple, isn't it?

Why was there even a need for a long discussion on the matter?

If this is the criterion, the discussion could be finished in twenty seconds.

And in general, if it is a "complex" decision, how is it that in the decision document, the one that explains why Albashan is not suitable, you don't see anything of this complexity.

And if it is really a complex matter, why not leave it in the hands of the minister, the man responsible for this appointment, to decide?

Detailed discussion

The State of Israel came and, fearing the appointment of unworthy people, established an institution that would be a gatekeeper.

to check that everything is running properly.

What did we actually get?

A committee with enormous power, which operates in the dark, without rules and without operating theory, which has no criteria, and which does what is on its mind without reasoning or explaining.

It seems that the time has come to appoint a gatekeeper for this gatekeeper.

Or more simply: dissolve the committee and return the appointments to those whom the public elected to do it.

"Return the appointments to those whom the public elected to do it" (Photo: Reuven Castro)

In response to the questions I addressed to Judge Gilaur, it was stated: As also stated in the committee's decision, the committee held two meetings regarding Mr. Albashan's candidacy - on June 30 and on July 3, in which the candidacy was discussed and a decision was made.

In order not to delay the delivery of the committee's determination, it was delivered the same day to the ministers and an announcement to that effect was even delivered to the media.

As is done many times, in the following days the decision was written and signed.

The decision was forwarded to the Minister of Welfare and Social Services, who forwarded it to the candidate, on July 6.



According to the committee's procedures, discussions can be held by telephone, and the committee does so a lot, especially after the spread of the corona virus.

It should not be concluded that the committee meetings are not in-depth and each member voices his opinion and a detailed discussion of the required questions takes place.

There was also a long and exhaustive discussion regarding Mr. Albashan's candidacy.



At the meeting on Thursday, June 30, in accordance with the predetermined agenda, about 30 nominations for office in corporations established by law and other bodies established by legislation in accordance with section 60a of the Government Companies Law, and for office in government companies, were discussed.

Since the discussion regarding Mr. Albashan's candidacy did not end on June 30, another special meeting was scheduled for Sunday, July 3, in which several other nominations were also discussed.

At the end of the special hearing, a decision regarding clothing was made by the opinion of all committee members.



Since the establishment of the committee according to law and for many years, the decision has been signed by the head of the committee who is also busy drafting it, with the help of the committee's legal advice.

Therefore, the chairman of the committee, Judge Gilaor, signs all of the committee's decisions. It is understood that the decisions are made by all the members of the committee, unanimously or by majority opinion. To the extent that there is a minority opinion, this is recorded in the body of the decision and the minority's reasons are also recorded. Drafts of the committee's decision regarding his candidacy of Mr. Albashan were forwarded for review and comments by the members of the committee - Prof. Udi Nissen and Attorney Norit Elstein.

The names of the committee members are not written in the committee's decisions.

However, as far as the protocol of the committee is requested, as was done by Mr. Albashan, the names of the members who participated in the meeting appear in it.



The committee has many years of expertise in examining appointments, and over the years it has compiled tools for examining them according to the Government Companies Law, 5335 1975, the instructions of the Attorney General, and the rulings of the courts that have dealt with the issue. In accordance with the guidance of the Legal Advisor to the Government 5000.6 concerning "Appointments in Government Companies and Public Corporations", regarding Section 16a (2) (a), experience is required in a corporation whose scope of activity is similar to the scope of activity of the corporation to which that person is nominated. The committee interprets the term "similar scope of activity" in a light manner in relation to corporations or companies with particularly large volumes. This is because in light of the scope of the companies government agencies or the largest statutory corporations in the economy, it is difficult to find candidates with experience in entities of similar scope. It should be clarified that this interpretation of the committee was applied equally in all cases in which appointments were brought before it in companies or corporations with an especially large business scope.

  • news

  • opinions and interpretations

Tags

  • Social Security

  • Judges

  • Blaha Gilaor

  • Yuval Albashan

Source: walla

All news articles on 2022-07-30

You may like

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.