Government gives PM authority to choose next civil service czar – Israel News
The Israeli government on Sunday approved the appointment process for the next Civil Service Commissioner (CSC), despite the Attorney General’s Office deeming it “legally unfeasible,” a move likely to further escalate already high tensions between the government and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara.
The Civil Service Commissioner is the official superior of the state’s tens of thousands of civil servants and is responsible for ensuring the professional and non-political nature of the civil service. The Commissioner has wide-ranging powers, including approving the allocation of positions and powers between and within administrative units, establishing administrative regulations for government institutions, chairing an appointments committee for senior civil service positions, and more.
The current Commissioner, Prof. Daniel Hershkovitz, will retire in September.
Under Israeli law, the government merely appoints the commissioner without establishing the procedure for doing so. In 2018, before Hershkovitz’s appointment by an ad hoc committee, the then government, also led by current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, decided that it would work out a regular procedure before the next CSC appointment, after consulting with the Attorney General and other legal bodies.
The Attorney General’s Office made its recommendation in June, but the government rejected it on Sunday, opting instead for another one-off ad hoc solution: Netanyahu would select the commissioner and then have the choice ratified by Israel’s High-Level Appointments Advisory Committee, which is responsible for appointing high-level posts – five of which are security-related (chief of staff, head of Mossad, head of Shin Bet, Israel Police Commissioner and head of the Israel Prison Service) and two are economic-related (Governor of Israel’s Central Bank and his or her deputy).
The Senior Appointments Advisory Committee consists of four members: a retired Supreme Court judge, the Civil Service Commissioner and two public representatives selected by the government. To prevent Hershkovitz from being involved in the appointment of his successor, Netanyahu proposes replacing him with a former Civil Service Commissioner or a former PMO Director General, provided neither is currently in the civil service.
In a letter to Baharav-Miara on Sunday morning, with copies to the Prime Minister’s Office and the legal advisers of the Public Service Commission, Deputy Attorney General Gil Limon reiterated his opinion that the government’s decision was “legally unsustainable” and lobbied the government to accept his June proposal.
Limon argued that the Senior Appointments Advisory Committee (SAAC) was an inappropriate body for the CSC appointments because it only examines the integrity of candidates, not their professional qualifications. While the SAAC usually approves candidates from a small pool of candidates who are deemed suitable for their senior position, the Civil Service Commissioner can come from a wide variety of backgrounds and the pool of candidates is huge. A nominations committee must therefore look at qualifications and not just integrity, Limon argued.
Limon added that the fact that Hershkowitz would be replaced in the SAAC by a person the prime minister himself chooses would tilt the four-member committee in the prime minister’s favor, as he would join the two people’s representatives appointed by his government. This would essentially allow Netanyahu to appoint anyone he wants, Limon said.
Limon argued that the proper procedure for appointing the CSC is a so-called “search committee,” in which an independent committee actively seeks out and confirms candidates and then recommends one or more of them to the government for selection.
Limon proposed in June a five-member search committee consisting of a retired Supreme Court judge, a representative of the Attorney General, a former official or director general of a major ministry selected by the PMO Director General with the Attorney General’s approval; an academic who is an expert in public law selected by the deans of all Israel’s law schools; and a public representative with significant relevant experience, also selected by the PMO Director General with the Attorney General’s approval.
Supreme Court ruling emphasizes independence of public service
Limon also linked the issue to the judicial reforms. Citing a Supreme Court ruling that stressed the importance of an independent civil service, he argued Sunday’s proposal would pave the way for the politicization of the entire civil service. Limon argued this could allow the government to weaken and control the civil service, and a non-political civil service commissioner was essential to prevent this.
Ministers criticized the composition of the search committee in Limon’s proposal, arguing that it was a power struggle by the Attorney General himself, as he has one seat on the committee and a veto over two other seats. Limon accepted the criticism and proposed negotiating a different composition, with the most important factor being the independence of the committee as a search committee. In his letter on Sunday, he criticized the government for ignoring his negotiating proposal.
According to the Prime Minister’s Office, during the government meeting on Sunday, Government Secretary Yossi Fuchs responded that the decisions of the previous government are not binding on the current government. The wording of the law simply states that the government appoints the CSC. Previous attempts to force the government to form a search committee were rejected by the Supreme Court. The Attorney General’s decision that the government’s proposal is not legally feasible thus represents an interference with the government’s authority. This, Fuchs argued, is part of a series of attempts by the Attorney General to wrest power from the government.
Netanyahu’s office later released its own quotes from the government meeting, arguing that it was a “clash of two views – a decision of the officials or a decision of the people.” In Netanyahu’s view, just as with the SAAC-reviewed appointments of senior defense officials, if the people believe the appointment was flawed, they can replace the government, which can then make new appointments.
“There is no rule by officials who are above the people and know better than the government, there is no such thing!” said the Prime Minister.
“If we do not let the clerks decide what qualities the heads of our security agencies must have, why should the appointment by the CSC be excluded and entrusted to them (the clerks)? And why should the clerks also not decide what qualifications a prime minister must have?” Netanyahu said.
“There is no valid reason to exclude the procedure for appointing the Civil Service Commissioner and subject it to the rule of the civil servants,” the Prime Minister concluded.
Opposition leader MK Yair Lapid criticized the government’s actions and called on whoever the government chooses to be CSC to reject the appointment. “If we return to government, we will have no choice but to dismiss you (the future CSC), because whoever is elected against the law may not be able to continue holding office,” Lapid said in a video message.
National Unity leader MK Benny Gantz wrote on X: “There has never been a government that has demolished the civil service as much as this one, (and) there has never been a government that has been so preoccupied with jobs, flights and coalition funds in wartime as this one.”
The Movement for Quality Government in Israel said in a statement on the government’s decision: “This is a serious violation of the principles of good governance and threatens the independence and professionalism of the civil service. Giving the appointment power directly to the Prime Minister opens a dangerous door for political appointments and government corruption, while trampling on the rule of law and the values of democracy. We call on the government to reverse this harmful decision and pledge to fight with all the means at our disposal to protect standards in public life and the independence of the civil service.”
