After the hearing in the High Court on the appointment of retired judge Meni Mazuz to the position of Chairman of the Commission for Senior Appointments, Attorney General Gali Beharve-Miara responded today (Thursday) to the High Court's demand to explain why Mazuz cannot be appointed temporarily for the purpose of approving the appointment of the Chief of Staff The ombudsman wrote to the judges that a temporary appointment means "a violation of the government's horizontal policy, and an opening to erode the independent and especially important status of the committee members as gatekeepers."
As I recall, the government's intention to appoint Mazuz to the position permanently was first published in Israel Hayom.
The ombudsman wrote in her answer to the High Court: "Due to the committee being a clear gatekeeper, the Israeli government established in 2018, an essential rule according to which the members of the committee will serve a rigid, one-time, 8-year term. In doing so, the Israeli government sought to sever any ties between the members of the committee and the political echelon".
The state's position is that the petition seeking to compel the government to appoint the chairman of the committee as an "ad hoc" appointment to examine the staffing of the Chief of Staff post only should be rejected.
The ombudsman stated in the answer that "this is a deviation from the essential rule established by the government itself". Also, Beharve-Miara clarified in her answer that there is no dispute that it is necessary to appoint a chairman to the committee in order to complete the process of appointing the Chief of Staff.
In the answer, the ombudsman described the two options that were open to her after it became clear that there was an urgent need to appoint a chief of staff: "One option, a deviation from the essential rule governing the issue, according to the ombudsman, is the government's decision from 2018. That is, to recommend to the government to appoint the new chairman for a short period, and a second option, to recommend an appointment in accordance with the essential rule established by the government."
"Because we are in an election period, each of the options is not optimal and each of them raises other difficulties," explained the ombudsman. To come in line with considerations of restraint and restraint during an election period, is a violation of the government's horizontal policy, and opens the door to the erosion of the independent and especially important status of the members of the committee as gatekeepers."
"There are currently two members appointed by a previous government who will serve for the duration of at least four governments and a civil service commissioner who is appointed by virtue of his position. The length of the term of office, which is unusual even on non-election days, was deliberately set in 2018 by the 34th government, in order to fulfill the important purpose of preserving the independence of the committee as a clear gatekeeper, and to sever the ties of its members from the government. This period by its nature results in the fact that every appointment binds the hands of at least one government," the ombudsman added.
Against this background, the state's answer states that "since there is no Disputing that the appointment of a chairman for the advisory committee at this time is necessary, in the circumstances of the concrete appointment under consideration, rather adherence to the essential norms established by the government itself in 2018 regarding the duration of the term of office of the members of the advisory committee, is in line with the ruling and the standards established by the guidance of the Legal Adviser to the Government Regarding appointments during an election period".
At the end of the reply letter, the ombudsman concluded that "the method of appointment that was chosen is the one that fulfills in the most correct way the purposes underlying the government's decision and the standards established by the guidance of the legal adviser to the government, and in any case it is within the range of reasonableness."
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us
