July 3, 2026
Hello, everyone.
This coming Tuesday, July 7, 2026, at 6:00 p.m., the regular council meeting will be held in the conference room. Here is a link to the meeting agenda. You’re welcome to send me any questions about the items on the agenda—I’d be happy to ask them on your behalf. And most importantly—as always, the meeting is open to the public. Please come to the meeting because I, and the entire community, need residents who are present and engaged.
This week’s newsletter covers three topics:
- First topic: I have filed another petition—the second one—against the council and the council chair. This time, it concerns the decision made at the plenary session on May 12, 2026, to hold a closed-door discussion on two issues. One of them is extremely critical, which is likely the reason for the illegal closure of the discussion, as I argue in the petition. The council’s legal advisor avoided providing a substantive response to my preliminary inquiries on the matter, so I had no choice but to file a petition.
- Second issue: How the council chairman prevented a reconsideration of the decision to reduce property tax discounts. And now the deadline for making changes has passed, so even in 2027—and likely forever—the cuts to property tax discounts for vulnerable groups—pensioners, benefit recipients, people with disabilities, and Holocaust survivors—will continue. But don’t be sad, because they’ll plant new flowers in the square and build another building on your street—because that’s what matters.
- Third topic: I regularly follow the minutes of the Regional Planning and Construction Committee. The community does not yet have a public representative approved to participate in the committee’s plenary sessions, so from time to time I report to you to ensure transparency regarding all matters related to construction in the community. In the next newsletter, I’ll write about the buildings planned for the community. In the meantime, an important and justified decision has been made regarding drainage planning.
First issue: I filed a petition following the council chair’s decision to hold a closed-door discussion on two issues during the plenary session on May 12, 2026. As usual, the council’s legal advisor did not provide a substantive response to my letters on the matter until I had no choice but to file the petition. I wonder when the council’s legal advisor will learn that his role is to uphold the law for the benefit of the residents, not to defend the council chairman and his actions.
I would like to begin by thanking the Association of Lawyers for Proper Public Administration which filed this petition alongside me for the benefit of all residents of Zichron Ya’akov. The association has been of great assistance to me because its goal, like mine, is to ensure compliance with the law and good governance in the council’s work.
A link to the petition filed with the Haifa District Court, sitting as an administrative court, seeks an order declaring:
1. That Respondent 2’s decision to hold a hearing on the matter of the “Welfare Center in Ramat Zvi” and the motion to: The revocation of the title “Deputy Council Chair” at the plenary session held on May 12, 2026, behind closed doors.
2. An order declaring that this decision is unlawful.
The petition, based on extensive case law, demonstrates that the two matters discussed in a closed-door session are matters of public interest, and there is no justification for the decision. Furthermore, the law specifies exceptions under which a closed-door discussion may be held—but the two issues at hand do not fall under these exceptions.
The petition demonstrates that the council chair’s decision to hold the hearing behind closed doors was made without authority, lacks a legitimate purpose, and fails to meet the tests of proportionality, and thus constitutes an unlawful infringement of the fundamental rights to freedom of information and freedom of expression. Such a decision must be declared null and void.
The petition explains that the council chair’s conduct raises concerns about the improper use of a provision of the law which permits closed-door hearings in exceptional cases, in an attempt to restrict the actions of elected officials and silence legitimate public criticism regarding clearly public matters such as the allocation of a public building and the title of deputy council chair.
Why I Filed the Petition:
1.I am prevented from telling you in detail what transpired at the meeting regarding the welfare center in Ramat Zvi on Sarah Street. All we have is the redacted transcript, which you can read here. This transcript does not include what I said during the meeting, nor does it explain why I voted against the motion. And in my opinion, this is precisely why the council chair decided the discussion would be closed—so that you wouldn’t know what it’s really about. So that you wouldn’t know why I voted against it, or what problems I identified. Because the truth would greatly anger the general public in Zichron Ya’akov. In addition, I am prohibited from elaborating on the discussion that took place regarding the revocation of the title “Deputy Council Chair” from Councilwoman Odelya Kedmi.
2. Because the council chairman cut me off during the meeting when I reiterated that there was no justification for holding a closed-door discussion. The council chairman had the opportunity to uphold the law—but he chose to ignore it. The council’s legal advisor was not present at the meeting, so I do not know if he would have listened to my remarks (based on my experience—probably not).
3. And this is truly infuriating—before we filed the petition, the organization contacted Attorney Yossi Barzilai, the council’s legal advisor, in a clear letter requesting clarification that the council chair’s decision to hold the meeting behind closed doors was completely invalid and that no council member is barred from speaking out, to write, and to express any criticism deemed appropriate regarding the issues discussed during the meeting that took place. The legal advisor did not respond substantively to this letter but instead attempted, through legal maneuvers, to “drag out the process” and wear me and the association down.
I emphasize that the Legal Advisor, Attorney Yossi Barzilai, could have taken a position supporting the law at this stage and secured the lifting of the ban—which would have saved the money the council will now spend on attorneys to file a response to the petition. Once again, as with the previous petition, this is a complete waste of public funds. Once again, instead of standing on the side of the law, the Legal Advisor chooses to fight the law and pursue an expensive and unnecessary legal proceeding.
4. Because, in my view, this entire affair constitutes a defiance of the law—a defiance of the public, which has every right to know the whole truth. The council chairman, backed by the council’s legal advisor, must realize that there are limits to his actions. He is not above the law, nor is he above the residents he is obligated to serve.
Second issue: How the council head prevented a re-vote on the decision to reduce property tax discounts. And now the deadline for change has passed, so even in 2027—and likely forever—the cuts to discounts for the underprivileged will continue. But don’t be sad—they’ll plant new flowers in the square and build you another building on the street—because that’s what matters (written sarcastically).
Read below from the minutes of the plenary session of May 12, 2026—the motion I submitted to the plenary and the council chair’s statement on the matter. It was on the basis of this statement that the issue was removed from the agenda.
In Newsletter No. 87 from May of this year, I reported to you on the above. See how fair I was—I believed that the Council Chair would keep his promise to the plenary members and the public and hold an orderly discussion on the tax ordinance, including a discussion on the level of discounts. I wrote the following to you in Newsletter No. 87—
“To my delight, a substantive discussion took place during the session regarding the proposal, in which the Council Chair explained that the 2026 tax ordinance—which includes the reduction in the discount as stated in Section C of the resolution—has already been published and cannot be amended. However, a plenary session will soon be held to discuss the 2027 tax ordinance, during which the issue of tax breaks will be revisited. I hope that ahead of this session, we will receive full information regarding the extent of the change resulting from the reduction in tax breaks.”
I acted on behalf of the many residents who have been financially harmed by the unjustified reduction in tax breaks (retirees, benefit recipients, people with disabilities, and Holocaust survivors)—we have been waiting for the special discussion promised by the council chair. I collected examples from residents (even though all the information is on the council’s computers and all it takes is a sincere willingness to review it). We waited and waited—and it didn’t happen, nor will it ever happen!! Because according to the law, any request to amend the 2027 tax ordinance must be submitted by the end of June 2026—meaning a plenary discussion on the matter must take place by that date. This means there will be no discussion, no public transparency, no change, and residents will continue to suffer this injustice in 2027 and likely forever.
This morning, Friday, I posted on Facebook in the “Free Stage” and “New Stage” groups—please join and comment. A apathetic public is exactly what the council head is hoping for. Don’t be apathetic—write and comment.
Third issue: A decision by the Regional Planning and Construction Committee to accept the council’s request to revoke the regional guidelines on drainage, including the requirement to include a drainage appendix with every building permit application submitted.
Alternatively, the council noted that it will review each permit application on its own merits and will not impose a blanket requirement on the applicant. I support this decision and believe it is the right one and in the best interest of residents seeking to obtain a building permit or to undergo the permit amendment process.
